Freeman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Freeman v. State

575 S.W.2d 800, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2893

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 1978

DocketNo. 39637

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 575 S.W.2d 800 (Freeman 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

Freeman v. State, 575 S.W.2d 800, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2893 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

GUNN, Judge.

Movant entered pleas of guilty to five charges of first degree robbery and two charges of assault with intent to kill with malice. He was sentenced to a 25 year term on each charge except for 15 year terms on two of the robbery charges. The sentences were to be served concurrently. His Rule 27.26 motion to set aside and vacate the judgment was denied after eviden-tiary hearing. He appeals the denial on the ground that the pleas were involuntary, in that: (1) he failed to receive effective assistance of counsel by reason of counsel’s failure to- interview witnesses; (2) there was lack of understanding of the charges; (3) he believed he would receive a life sentence if he insisted on a jury trial; (4) there was no adequate determination that the pleas were voluntary. Movant’s contentions are absolutely without merit or, justification, and " we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

The record of proceedings of mov-ant’s guilty pleas firmly establishes that they were knowingly and voluntarily made. The trial judge questioned the movant in exhaustive detail as to the charges against him, his understanding of the charges and whether he voluntarily wished to withdraw pleas of not guilty. From the record of proceedings, it is positive that movant was totally aware of his rights and the consequences of his pleas; that no promises had been made to him in exchange for the guilty pleas. Further, movant fully inculpated himself in the crimes as charged. The record absolutely refutes movant’s contentions that his pleas were not knowingly or voluntarily made, and no error occurred in denying his 27.26 motion. Rice v. State, No. 39300 (Mo.App. St.L.Dist., Oct. 24, 1978); Jackson v. State, 572 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App. St.L.Dist., 1978); Breeland v. State, 568 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1978); Haynes v. State, 565 S.W.2d 191 (Mo.App.1978).

Movant’s contention that he did not receive adequate assistance of counsel by reason of his trial attorney’s failure to interview witnesses is belied by the record. Movant never indicated to his counsel that any defense witnesses existed. But further, effectiveness of counsel on a guilty plea is immaterial except as it affects mov-ant’s understanding and voluntariness of his plea, which, in this case, was no factor. Rice v. State, supra; Jackson v. State, supra; Haynes v. State, supra; Keller v. State, 566 S.W.2d 260 (Mo.App.1978); Rogers v. State, 564 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.App.1978).

Finally, movant’s assertion that his guilty pleas were not voluntary as they were based on his belief that he would receive a life sentence if he did not so plea is not a basis for relief. The decision to plead guilty is not rendered involuntary even if influenced by fear of greater punishment if the plea were not made, Barber v. State, 564 S.W.2d 914 (Mo.App.1978), nor, if made, in expectation of lighter punishment. McMahon v. State, 569 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1978). The record also positively shows that no threats of greater punish[802]*802ment or promises of lighter punishment were made to obtain movant’s pleas of guilty.

No error appears in the denial of mov-ant’s motion, and the judgment is affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and CLEMENS, J., concur.

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

GUNN, Judge.

Movant entered pleas of guilty to five charges of first degree robbery and two charges of assault with intent to kill with malice. He was sentenced to a 25 year term on each charge except for 15 year terms on two of the robbery charges. The sentences were to be served concurrently. His Rule 27.26 motion to set aside and vacate the judgment was denied after eviden-tiary hearing. He appeals the denial on the ground that the pleas were involuntary, in that: (1) he failed to receive effective assistance of counsel by reason of counsel’s failure to- interview witnesses; (2) there was lack of understanding of the charges; (3) he believed he would receive a life sentence if he insisted on a jury trial; (4) there was no adequate determination that the pleas were voluntary. Movant’s contentions are absolutely without merit or, justification, and " we affirm the trial court’s ruling.

The record of proceedings of mov-ant’s guilty pleas firmly establishes that they were knowingly and voluntarily made. The trial judge questioned the movant in exhaustive detail as to the charges against him, his understanding of the charges and whether he voluntarily wished to withdraw pleas of not guilty. From the record of proceedings, it is positive that movant was totally aware of his rights and the consequences of his pleas; that no promises had been made to him in exchange for the guilty pleas. Further, movant fully inculpated himself in the crimes as charged. The record absolutely refutes movant’s contentions that his pleas were not knowingly or voluntarily made, and no error occurred in denying his 27.26 motion. Rice v. State, No. 39300 (Mo.App. St.L.Dist., Oct. 24, 1978); Jackson v. State, 572 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App. St.L.Dist., 1978); Breeland v. State, 568 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1978); Haynes v. State, 565 S.W.2d 191 (Mo.App.1978).

Movant’s contention that he did not receive adequate assistance of counsel by reason of his trial attorney’s failure to interview witnesses is belied by the record. Movant never indicated to his counsel that any defense witnesses existed. But further, effectiveness of counsel on a guilty plea is immaterial except as it affects mov-ant’s understanding and voluntariness of his plea, which, in this case, was no factor. Rice v. State, supra; Jackson v. State, supra; Haynes v. State, supra; Keller v. State, 566 S.W.2d 260 (Mo.App.1978); Rogers v. State, 564 S.W.2d 576 (Mo.App.1978).

Finally, movant’s assertion that his guilty pleas were not voluntary as they were based on his belief that he would receive a life sentence if he did not so plea is not a basis for relief. The decision to plead guilty is not rendered involuntary even if influenced by fear of greater punishment if the plea were not made, Barber v. State, 564 S.W.2d 914 (Mo.App.1978), nor, if made, in expectation of lighter punishment. McMahon v. State, 569 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1978). The record also positively shows that no threats of greater punish[802]*802ment or promises of lighter punishment were made to obtain movant’s pleas of guilty.

No error appears in the denial of mov-ant’s motion, and the judgment is affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and CLEMENS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.W.2d 800, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-state-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack