State v. Holman, 486 So.2d 500, 503 (Ala. 1986); Tiner v. State, 421 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Boykin v. State, 361 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978). The courts recognize that a plea must be entered intelligently and voluntarily, Tiner, 421 So.2d at 1370, and informing a defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). The fact that the defendant later becomes dissatisfied with his sentence will not constitute a ground for invalidating the plea.

State v. Holman, 486 So.2d 500, 503 (Ala. 1986); Tiner v. State, 421 So.2d 1369, 1370 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Boykin v. State, 361 So.2d 1158, 1160 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978). The courts recognize that a plea must be entered intelligently and voluntarily, Tiner, 421 So.2d at 1370, and informing a defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). The fact that the defendant later becomes dissatisfied with his sentence will not constitute a ground for invalidating the plea.

The courts recognize that a plea must be entered intelligently and voluntarily, Tiner, 421 So.2d at 1370, and informing a defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's fashioning an intelligent and voluntary waiver. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). The fact that the defendant later becomes dissatisfied with his sentence will not constitute a ground for invalidating the plea.

Tiner v. State, supra. The fact that a defendant who has knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty later becomes dissatisfied with the sentence he received does not, alone, constitute a ground for invalidating the guilty plea. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). "Although it is undisputed that an agreement was reached between Holman's counsel and the prosecutor, which provided for a recommendation of a sentence of 15 years in exchange for a guilty plea, it is apparent from the previously cited portion of the record that Holman's guilty plea was made without objection to, and with full knowledge of, the added conditions set out by the trial judge.

In a coram nobis proceeding, petitioner bears the burden of presenting satisfactory proof of his claim. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). We find that petitioner has failed to meet this burden of proof.

Tiner v. State, supra. The fact that a defendant who has knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty later becomes dissatisfied with the sentence he received does not, alone, constitute a ground for invalidating the guilty plea. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). Although it is undisputed that an agreement was reached between Holman's counsel and the prosecutor, which provided for a recommendation of a sentence of 15 years in exchange for a guilty plea, it is apparent from the previously cited portion of the record that Holman's guilty plea was made without objection to, and with full knowledge of, the added conditions set out by the trial judge.

The Supreme Court [of Ohio] has held that: the qualification or competency of a witness to testify as an expert or to give his opinion on a particular subject rests with the trial court, and, on appeal, its rulings with respect to such matters will ordinarily not be reversed unless there is a clear showing that the court abused its discretion." Midwest Materials, Inc. v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., 11th Dist. Lake No. 9-021, 1982 WL 5659, at *1 (Sept. 24, 1982), citing Ohio Turnpike Commission v. Ellis, 164 Ohio St. 377 (1955). {¶34} As noted earlier, "an abuse of discretion is the trial court's 'failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.'"

Tiner v. State, supra. The fact that a defendant who has knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty later becomes dissatisfied with the sentence he received does not, alone, constitute a ground for invalidating the guilty plea. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). "Although it is undisputed that an agreement was reached between Holman's counsel and the prosecutor, which provided for a recommendation of a sentence of 15 years in exchange for a guilty plea, it is apparent from the previously cited portion of the record that Holman's guilty plea was made without objection to, and with full knowledge of, the added conditions set out by the trial judge.

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Clark v. State, 294 Ala. 485, 318 So.2d 805 (1974); Bowens v. State, 570 So.2d 844 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); A.R.Cr.P. 14.4. Informing a defendant of the nature of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea is crucial to the defendant's ability to fashion an intelligent and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). Rule 14.4(a) requires a full colloquy to ensure that the defendant fully understands the meaning of his plea and its consequences.

Moreover, "the subjective beliefs of a defendant on the matter of how much sentence will be imposed, when unsupported by any promise from the State or indications by the court, are insufficient to invalidate a guilty plea." Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). Cleveland has therefore failed to establish that but for counsel's alleged professional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.