Riddle v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Riddle’s postconviction petition alleging that counsel misadvised him about parole eligibility and thereby induced his guilty plea. Applying clear-error review, the court upheld the circuit court’s credibility determination that counsel correctly explained the seventy-percent service requirement and that the five-to-eight-year period referred to possible clemency or commutation, not parole. Because Riddle failed to establish deficient performance, the court did not address prejudice.