Bradley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bradley v. State

285 S.W.3d 832, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2009 WL 1759702

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketED 91851

StatusPublished

This text of 285 S.W.3d 832 (Bradley v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley v. State, 285 S.W.3d 832, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2009 WL 1759702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Bradley (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) Movant’s plea counsel failed to disclose, prior to the plea, a statement made by Movant’s co-defendant, Jeffrey Thurman, that Thurman, not Movant, had killed the victim in this case; (2) Movant’s plea counsel did not explain to him that he could appeal the court’s denial of a change of venue after he had gone to trial; (3) Movant’s plea counsel coerced Movant into pleading guilty by guaranteeing he would be convicted of all charges and receive the death penalty; and (4) Movant’s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in that Movant’s custody situation was unbearable and coercive.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Bradley (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) Movant’s plea counsel failed to disclose, prior to the plea, a statement made by Movant’s co-defendant, Jeffrey Thurman, that Thurman, not Movant, had killed the victim in this case; (2) Movant’s plea counsel did not explain to him that he could appeal the court’s denial of a change of venue after he had gone to trial; (3) Movant’s plea counsel coerced Movant into pleading guilty by guaranteeing he would be convicted of all charges and receive the death penalty; and (4) Movant’s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in that Movant’s custody situation was unbearable and coercive.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 S.W.3d 832, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2009 WL 1759702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-state-moctapp-2009.