Delapaz v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Delapaz v. State

385 S.W.3d 477, 2012 WL 3079098, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 951

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 31, 2012·No. No. WD 74075·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Torrez Delapaz, Jr. pleaded guilty to the Class D felony of driving while intoxicated. He was sentenced as a persistent offender to four years imprisonment. Delapaz appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Delapaz argues that the trial court imposed a sentence in excess of that authorized by law. He also argues that his trial attorney was ineffective because she failed to correctly inform him of the possible range of punishment. Both points on appeal require Delapaz to demonstrate that a sufficient factual basis for his status as a persistent offender was not established during his guilty plea. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Torrez Delapaz, Jr. pleaded guilty to the Class D felony of driving while intoxicated. He was sentenced as a persistent offender to four years imprisonment. Delapaz appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Delapaz argues that the trial court imposed a sentence in excess of that authorized by law. He also argues that his trial attorney was ineffective because she failed to correctly inform him of the possible range of punishment. Both points on appeal require Delapaz to demonstrate that a sufficient factual basis for his status as a persistent offender was not established during his guilty plea. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Delapaz v. State, 385 S.W.3d 477, 2012 WL 3079098, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 951 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

385 S.W.3d 477 (Delapaz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.