This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the application of Paul Gibbs for a writ of habeas corpus, The ground presented is ineffective assistance of counsel upon the trial.

, , , Gibbs made his application some six . . . . ... , . years after he pleaded guilty to armed 1.1. mi t\ • j. • x t i ; . robbery. The District Judge held a hear- , , . „ . . . TT mg and rendered a careful opinion. He , found that two lawyers had represented n... , , , . t . Gibbs. The first was a retained counsel, , , . . . . j. . . ... . , who advised him to plead guilty and to , ~ . , ,. accept a 25-year sentence offered by the ,, . . distnct attorney rather than risk a man- , , , , ... . . . datory life sentence as an habitual crimi- , . ,, .. nal on charges then pending. Gibbs re-j. . , ... , ... , . fused, and this lawyer withdrew. An- ... . , , ...... other lawyer was appointed, and it is his „ . . • , . . r,.,, , . representation which Gibbs contends was ineffective.

This lawyer was aware that upon two prior occasions Gibbs had been committed for insanity 1 in civil proceedings, which the District Court judge in the present proceedings suggests were devices adopted by Gibbs’s family. The lawyer also knew that the State had recently secured a mental examination which showed Gibbs to be sane. He had served several sentences for criminal offenses. On this lawyer’s advice Gibbs pleaded guilty and accepted the sentence °f 25 years. The habitual criminal char^s and two other charges for armed Jobbery were dismissed.

Gibbs claimed that the lawyer advised him not to raise insanity as a defense at trial. The lawyer himself answered interrogatories, in which he stated that he was unaware that Gibbs had prior convictions when he advised him to plead guilty, and that he had no knowledge of the adjudications of insanity. However this evidence conflicts with the testimony of Gibbs wbich was credited by the trial judge. 2

^'^ie facts found by the trial judge are adequately supported by the record. mi ,> . ^ Those facts portray a dilemma not un- . . , ,. m. . . common m criminal practice. This law- . ,, , . . . yer knew that if the case went to trial and ... ,. conviction was obtained his client would „ , , ... face a mandatory life sentence as an , , ., . . . . nabitual criminal. The district attorney „ . , .. . ,. ... . offered to dismiss these latter charges m . „ ... . , , exchange for a guilty plea to armed rob- . ° . . . ... .... bery. The lawyer advised his client to , „ r , . ,. ., accept one of two undesirable alterna- ,. ... ,. ..... ,, , tives. We agree with the trial judge that .... f , , „ : „ this does not make out a case of meffee- . , . . tive assistance of counsel,

Affirmed.