An offender may be entitled to habeas relief where the court based a decision on an erroneous understanding that the defendant had stipulated to the sentence received. The defendant’s written plea agreement in state court had specified a sentencing lid, but at sentencing, trial counsel erroneously stated that the agreement had been for a specified term. Counsel neither argued for a lower term nor presented mitigating evidence. The defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Nevada appellate courts, which adopted trial counsel’s erroneous statement of the terms of the plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of habeas relief, finding that the state court decisions rested upon an unreasonable determination of the facts. The matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.