In all other cases where a defendant pleads guilty on the basis of a contract of appeal and the judge decides that the final order must not contain the punitive concessions or concessions provided, the withdrawal of the 14-2.1 ground may be admissible. If the court is satisfied that the defendant fully acknowledges the consequences of the defence agreement and that he or she has been represented by the Defence Council, his will is expressed in full compliance with the legal requirements without deception or coercion, even if there is sufficient evidence of doubt as to the conviction and the agreement on a lawful sentence is found – the court approves the pleadings and renders a verdict guilty. If one of the above conditions is not met, the Tribunal rejects the authorization of the plea and refers the matter to the prosecutor. (Article 213 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure). The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote the majority decision in which it was stated that, in order for the plea to be upheld, the accused must have been advised by competent counsel who was able to inform the person that his best decision in the case would be to make an admission of guilt.  The court held that the accused could make such a plea “if he finds that his interests require an admission of guilt and the record strongly indicates guilt.”  The court allowed the admission of guilt and the simultaneous charge only because there was sufficient evidence that the Crown had a strong argument in favour of a conviction and that the accused had entered such a plea to avoid that possible conviction. Even if the accused had been able to prove that he did not “but” an admission of guilt to justify a lesser sentence, the plea itself would not have been declared void.
 Given that there was evidence that could have supported Alford`s conviction, the Supreme Court held that his plea was admissible, while the accused himself still maintained that he was not guilty.  (c) Before accepting an admission of guilt or a suitor to Nolo, the court should also inform the accused that the accused risks additional consequences by bringing an action, including, but not limited to, forfeiture of property, loss of certain civil rights, deprivation of certain state benefits, and a heavier sentence if the accused is convicted in the future for another crime. and, if the defendant is not a U.S. citizen, a change in the defendant`s immigration status. The court should advise the accused to consult with defence counsel if the accused needs additional information on the possible consequences of the plea. (a) A defendant may be found not guilty, guilty or (if permitted by the law of jurisdiction) nolo contendere. An admission of guilt or a Nolo candidate should only be received by the defendant in person in an open case, unless the defendant is a company, in which case the registration may be filed with the company`s permission by a lawyer or an officer of the company. A defendant can only avail himself of candidates nolo with the consent of the court. In the case of hybrid offences in England and Wales, the decision on whether to try a case before the Magistrates Court or Crown Court is made by the judges until after a plea has been entered.