Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126

Webb, an intoxicated driver, pled guilty to first-degree involuntary manslaughter (class B) and armed criminal action after a collision that killed Terry Parker.
Plea included dismissal of a failure-to-drive-on-right-half charge; State recommended two concurrent 10-year sentences.
During the plea colloquy Webb answered questions about threats, free will, and understanding of punishment; court found the pleas voluntary and intelligent.
Post-conviction, Webb alleged his counsel misled him by stating he would not face the 85% parole-ineligibility rule and would serve only 40% before parole.
The motion court denied an evidentiary hearing, but Webb contends the record does not conclusively refute his claim, and the SAR did not clearly inform him of the 85% rule.
The SAR was reviewed in the sentencing context, but the 85% language was not present in Webb’s SAR; the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does misinforming about 85% parole affect voluntariness?	Webb argues counsel's misrepresentation renders the plea involuntary.	State contends Reynolds controls; parole is collateral and not required to be explained.	Yes; misinformation may render the plea involuntary and entitles Webb to an evidentiary hearing.
Does Padilla extend to parole eligibility as a truly clear consequence?	Padilla extends to consequences beyond deportation when truly clear; thus parole could be covered.	Padilla applies to deportation and similar, not all collateral consequences; parole may remain collateral.	Padilla-like analysis may apply; parole consequences can be sufficiently clear to require counsel to inform.
Was the omission about the 85% rule resolved by the SAR record?	SAR did not state the 85% rule, so counsel may have given incorrect guidance.	SAR contained parole guidelines and was reviewed; the 85% term was not clearly stated in the SAR.	The record does not conclusively refute the claim; an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Should the motion court's denial be affirmed or reversed?	Record shows likely ineffective assistance; denial lacks support.	Record refutes allegations; denial should stand.	The motion court's denial is reversed; case remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1999) (parole eligibility treated as collateral; misinfo may affect voluntariness)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (duty to inform about truly clear deportation consequences; may extend to other clear consequences)
Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. banc 2002) (record-supported conclusions; not entitled to hearing where record refutes claim)
Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125 (Mo.App.2001) (negative routine inquiries cannot prove absence of parole misinfo)
Reid v. State, 192 S.W.3d 727 (Mo.App.2006) (parole as collateral consequence; infirmities in plea claim require more specific showing)
State v. Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. banc 2010) (statutory framework for 85% parole rule and its interaction with involuntary manslaughter plea)