Cotton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cotton v. State

991 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 673

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 1999

DocketNo. 74235

StatusPublished

This text of 991 S.W.2d 209 (Cotton 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

Cotton v. State, 991 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 673 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Gregory Cotton filed this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing. On appeal, Movant contends he is entitled to a hearing on his claim that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and prepare a defense for him.

Movant fails to file a copy of the transcript from the guilty plea hearing. On appeal, Movant bears the burden of showing the motion court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). Furthermore, Movant bears the burden of providing a transcript under Rule 81.12 containing all the record necessary to determine the questions on appeal. Movant’s failure to file the guilty plea transcript means his contentions on appeal are unsupported, and we are unable to determine whether the motion court’s actions are clearly erroneous. Speakman v. State, 602 S.W.2d 471, 472-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1980). Under the circumstances, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Gregory Cotton filed this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing. On appeal, Movant contends he is entitled to a hearing on his claim that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and prepare a defense for him.

Movant fails to file a copy of the transcript from the guilty plea hearing. On appeal, Movant bears the burden of showing the motion court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). Furthermore, Movant bears the burden of providing a transcript under Rule 81.12 containing all the record necessary to determine the questions on appeal. Movant’s failure to file the guilty plea transcript means his contentions on appeal are unsupported, and we are unable to determine whether the motion court’s actions are clearly erroneous. Speakman v. State, 602 S.W.2d 471, 472-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1980). Under the circumstances, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

991 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotton-v-state-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack