Duckson v. State

JUSTICE PLEICONES:

Petitioner’s parole was revoked following a hearing at which he was represented by a retained attorney. Petitioner then filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging, among other things, that his parole revocation attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the PCR judge held:(1) Petitioner had stated no cognizable claim under the Uniform Post Conviction Relief Act1; and

*598(2) Petitioner failed to prove that his parole revocation counsel was ineffective.

We granted certiorari, and now affirm.

ISSUE

Has petitioner stated a…