What is the state's position on pleading guilty to a charge of perverting the course of justice?

The central issue in the case is whether or not the appellant's guilty plea was voluntary. The appellant contends that the plea was entered after his counsel had reached a specific understanding with the prosecutor and the judge that the maximum sentence that would be imposed would be no more than seven years, and that since the promise was not followed by the court, his waiver of his right to trial was not voluntary and the guilty plea obtained in violation of due process of law. The state concedes that if it were established that the seven years promise was in fact made and then broken, the appellant would be entitled to have the writ issue. See, United States ex rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan, 256 F.Supp. 244 (S.D.N.Y.1966).