Issue (from certification)
Whether an offender whose parole and extended supervision was revoked after a revocation hearing has an adequate remedy other than a writ of habeas corpus to pursue a claim that the attorney who represented him during the hearing rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance? Specifically, must the offender raise a claim of ineffective assistance of revocation counsel in a motion to the division of hearings and appeals (DHA) in the department of administration?
For a complete discussion and even some commentary, see our post on the certification.
UPDATE (9/15/16): On August 24 the state filed a motion to vacate the certification because it learned DHA isn’t currently in a position to review IAC claims against revocation counsel, which means habeas is indeed the only available remedy (at least for now). The supreme court has granted the motion, and returned the case to the court of appeals to address the merits of Redmond’s claim.