Did the state court disregard this Court's precedent by upholding the constitutional validity of Petitioner's guilty plea despite recognizing the trial court's findings that the undisputed facts did not satisfy an essential element of the charged offense, disregarding this Court's precedent that a plea based on misunderstanding of the offense elements and misinformation about the punishment range violates due process and the right to effective assistance of counsel by justifying its decision on the dismissal of lesser charges as part of the plea agreement and the possibility of conviction upon refiling or amending the charge to an uncharged lesser offense, while failing to address the incorrect punishment information provided by both defense counsel and the trial court, where Petitioner affirmatively demonstrated that he would not have pleaded guilty if accurately informed.

Did the state court disregard this Court's precedent by upholding the constitutional validity of a guilty plea despite recognizing that undisputed facts did not satisfy an essential element of the charged offense?