*432 OPINION

Appellant Serge Vaiílancourt was indicted for the unlawful sale of narcotics. He entered a not guilty plea, and the case was set down for trial. On the day of trial, Vaiílancourt changed his plea to guilty, and he was sentenced to serve 8 years in the Nevada State Prison. He seeks post-conviction relief, claiming that his guilty plea was entered in response to promises from the district attorney’s office that the district attorney would recommend probation. This was not done.

Vaiílancourt has filed in support of his petition affidavits from both of his parents, a California attorney who had been his counsel in other matters and who had spoken in Vaillan-court’s behalf when he was sentenced, and a woman friend. All four affidavits corroborate Vaillancourt’s claim that he had been promised a recommendation for probation.

The judge below, in considering Vaillancourt’s petition, summarily denied it without affording him an evidentiary hearing. 1 Our recent case of Fine v. Warden, 90 Nev. 166, 521 P.2d 374 (1974), is controlling in the instant appeal. There, we held that where an accused enters a guilty plea upon the basis of a promise made by the State, and the promise is unequivocal, then he is entitled to withdraw his plea if the promise is unfulfilled. Where, as here, something more than a naked allegation has been asserted, it is error to resolve the apparent factual dispute without granting the accused an evidentiary hearing. 2 Accordingly, Vaiílancourt is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing for the determination of the truth or falsity of the allegation of a promise. If the allegation is true, then he is entitled to plead anew. Macon v. Craven, supra note 2.

*433 We therefore reverse the order below and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth or falsity of Vaillancourt’s allegation as to a promise.