Christman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Christman v. State

530 S.W.3d 645

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 2017

DocketWD 79777

StatusPublished

This text of 530 S.W.3d 645 (Christman 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

Christman v. State, 530 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Appellant William A, Christman (“Christman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing, In his sole point on appeal, Christman argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to act as a reasonably competent attorney by neglecting to timely inform the prosecutor that Christman had accepted a four-year plea agreement with the State. Christman argues that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance in that there is a reasonable probability that had counsel provided effective assistance he would have received a lesser sentence. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Appellant William A, Christman (“Christman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing, In his sole point on appeal, Christman argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to act as a reasonably competent attorney by neglecting to timely inform the prosecutor that Christman had accepted a four-year plea agreement with the State. Christman argues that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance in that there is a reasonable probability that had counsel provided effective assistance he would have received a lesser sentence. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.3d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christman-v-state-moctapp-2017.