Brown v. State

291 S.W.3d 374, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1222, 2009 WL 2748113
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 1, 2009·No. ED 91993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Romel A. Brown (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelli-gently based upon his plea counsel’s promise that he would be granted probation if he successfully completed the Sexual Offender Assessment Unit program, Section 559.115, RSMo Cum.Supp.2007.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

Brown v. State, 291 S.W.3d 374, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1222, 2009 WL 2748113 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

291 S.W.3d 374 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Redmond
291 S.W.3d 374 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)