Writing for the majority, Justice Byron White held that a guilty plea is constitutionally valid if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the available options to the defendant, even if they professe their innocence. White began by affirming the principle that a plea of guilty must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to the defendant. He referenced the Court’s decision in Brady v. United States (1970), which held that a guilty plea is not compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment if it is entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. He emphasized, however, that the validity of a guilty plea does not depend on the defendant’s actual guilt but rather on whether the plea was made voluntarily and with an understanding of its consequences. White acknowledged that while most guilty pleas involve an admission of guilt, the Constitution does not require such an admission for the plea to be valid. He stated, “[a]n individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.”

White then addressed the specific circumstances of Alford’s case. He noted that the trial court had conducted a thorough examination before accepting the plea, including hearing testimony that provided a strong factual basis for the charge. Alford's decision to plead guilty was made with the advice of competent counsel and was motivated by a desire to avoid the death penalty and limit his exposure to a 30-year sentence, so White concluded that the trial judge did not commit a constitutional error in accepting Alford’s guilty plea, despite Alford’s protestations of innocence.