Denham v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Denham v. State

824 S.W.2d 54, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 1991 WL 271524

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 24, 1991

DocketNo. 59029

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 824 S.W.2d 54 (Denham 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

Denham v. State, 824 S.W.2d 54, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 1991 WL 271524 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an extended hearing. He seeks relief from concurrent life sentences imposed according to negotiated guilty pleas to murder in the second degree, § 565.021.1 RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 RSMo 1986. The original information charged movant with murder in the first degree, § 565.020.2 RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action.

We find no merit to this appeal. The only issue before this court is whether movant knowingly and voluntarily entered the pleas. Gillespie v. State, 785 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Mo.App.1990). Movant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel and allegations of error in the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to demonstrate any effect on the voluntariness of the plea. Furthermore, the majority of movant’s complaints pertain to witness credibility, which is a determination for the motion court. Fisk v. State, 773 S.W.2d 902, 903 (Mo.App.1989). The remaining claims of error are resolved by Sanders v. State, 770 S.W.2d 447 (Mo.App.1989). Here, as in Sanders, movant waived these claims when he entered his guilty plea and refuted them at the plea hearing. Id. at 448.

We have reviewed the entire record and cannot say the motion court was clearly erroneous in denying movant’s Rule 24.035 motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an extended hearing. He seeks relief from concurrent life sentences imposed according to negotiated guilty pleas to murder in the second degree, § 565.021.1 RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 RSMo 1986. The original information charged movant with murder in the first degree, § 565.020.2 RSMo 1986 and armed criminal action.

We find no merit to this appeal. The only issue before this court is whether movant knowingly and voluntarily entered the pleas. Gillespie v. State, 785 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Mo.App.1990). Movant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel and allegations of error in the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law fail to demonstrate any effect on the voluntariness of the plea. Furthermore, the majority of movant’s complaints pertain to witness credibility, which is a determination for the motion court. Fisk v. State, 773 S.W.2d 902, 903 (Mo.App.1989). The remaining claims of error are resolved by Sanders v. State, 770 S.W.2d 447 (Mo.App.1989). Here, as in Sanders, movant waived these claims when he entered his guilty plea and refuted them at the plea hearing. Id. at 448.

We have reviewed the entire record and cannot say the motion court was clearly erroneous in denying movant’s Rule 24.035 motion.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 S.W.2d 54, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1865, 1991 WL 271524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denham-v-state-moctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack