Enriquez v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Enriquez v. State

301 S.W.3d 140, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 59, 2010 WL 298384

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

DocketWD 70283

StatusPublished

This text of 301 S.W.3d 140 (Enriquez 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

Enriquez v. State, 301 S.W.3d 140, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 59, 2010 WL 298384 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Enriquez, Jr., appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Enriquez pled guilty to one count of tampering in the first degree, one count of domestic assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and two counts of armed criminal action. Enriquez was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of seven years for tampering and twenty years each for domestic assault, robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. Enriquez seeks post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, asserting his plea was unknowing or involuntary because he was misled by trial counsel. Enriquez failed to show that his trial counsel promised that he would receive a ten-year sentence or that his belief that he would receive a ten-year sentence was reasonable. Moreover, he failed to show that his counsel’s statements regarding sentencing prejudiced him.

Accordingly, 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.

Francisco Enriquez, Jr., appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Enriquez pled guilty to one count of tampering in the first degree, one count of domestic assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and two counts of armed criminal action. Enriquez was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of seven years for tampering and twenty years each for domestic assault, robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. Enriquez seeks post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, asserting his plea was unknowing or involuntary because he was misled by trial counsel. Enriquez failed to show that his trial counsel promised that he would receive a ten-year sentence or that his belief that he would receive a ten-year sentence was reasonable. Moreover, he failed to show that his counsel’s statements regarding sentencing prejudiced him.

Accordingly, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.3d 140, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 59, 2010 WL 298384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enriquez-v-state-moctapp-2010.