concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I would hold that the first ground raised in Tippitt’s state petition for post-conviction relief is the functional equivalent of the third ground raised in his federal habeas petition. In substance, Tippitt’s state court petitions alleged that his guilty plea had been unlawfully induced or involuntarily entered on the basis of his lack of complete understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea. Ground No. 3 of Tippitt’s federal habeas petition alleges that his counsel misinformed him “on points of law which were used as inducements to secure a negotiated plea.” Although neither the statement attached to this petition nor the statement attached to the second state court Rule 37 petition is a model of clarity, they do express Tippitt’s belief that he was misled into entering his guilty plea on the basis of misrepresentations made to him by his counsel concerning the length of time that he would be *556required to serve on the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Accordingly, I would hold that the requirement of substantial equivalency set forth in Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971), has been satisfied.
I concur in the other portions of the majority opinion.