Brandon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brandon v. State

347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2011 WL 3808107

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95628

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.W.3d 177 (Brandon 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

Brandon v. State, 347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2011 WL 3808107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elvis Brandon, Jr. (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of deviate sexual assault in the first degree, Section 566.070 RSMo (2000), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to a term of one year imprisonment for deviate sexual assault and five years’ imprisonment on the possession of a controlled substance count, to run concurrently. Movant raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court abused its discretion in denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). Second, Movant claims his plea was rendered involuntary when defense counsel promised him he would receive one year imprisonment on each count to run concurrently in exchange for pleading guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Elvis Brandon, Jr. (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of deviate sexual assault in the first degree, Section 566.070 RSMo (2000), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to a term of one year imprisonment for deviate sexual assault and five years’ imprisonment on the possession of a controlled substance count, to run concurrently. Movant raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court abused its discretion in denying his motions to withdraw his guilty pleas pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). Second, Movant claims his plea was rendered involuntary when defense counsel promised him he would receive one year imprisonment on each count to run concurrently in exchange for pleading guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2011 WL 3808107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack