Dekruyff v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dekruyff v. State

449 S.W.3d 790, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1335, 2014 WL 6679177

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 25, 2014·No. WD 76703·Published

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

Richard Dekruyff appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Dekruyff claims that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to intervene when the court granted Dekruyff additional time to plead guilty; and (2) failing to inform both Dekruyff and the court that if Dekruyff did not plead guilty at that time, the State’s plea offer would expire. Because Dekruyffs claims on appeal differ from those raised before the motion court, they are not preserved. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

Richard Dekruyff appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Dekruyff claims that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to intervene when the court granted Dekruyff additional time to plead guilty; and (2) failing to inform both Dekruyff and the court that if Dekruyff did not plead guilty at that time, the State’s plea offer would expire. Because Dekruyffs claims on appeal differ from those raised before the motion court, they are not preserved. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

Dekruyff v. State, 449 S.W.3d 790, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1335, 2014 WL 6679177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

449 S.W.3d 790 (Dekruyff v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.