Guerra-Hernandez v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Guerra-Hernandez v. State

577 S.W.3d 175

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 18, 2019

DocketNo. ED 107116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 577 S.W.3d 175 (Guerra-Hernandez 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

Guerra-Hernandez v. State, 577 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Lazaro Guerra-Hernandez ("Guerra-Hernandez") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Guerra-Hernandez alleges that the motion court erred in denying his motion because he would not have pleaded *176guilty had plea counsel not erroneously advised him that by pleading guilty he would only be sentenced to a 120-day treatment program under Section 559.115. Because the record conclusively demonstrates that Guerra-Hernandez's guilty plea was voluntary and his reliance on plea counsel's sentencing prediction was unreasonable, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Lazaro Guerra-Hernandez ("Guerra-Hernandez") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Guerra-Hernandez alleges that the motion court erred in denying his motion because he would not have pleaded *176guilty had plea counsel not erroneously advised him that by pleading guilty he would only be sentenced to a 120-day treatment program under Section 559.115. Because the record conclusively demonstrates that Guerra-Hernandez's guilty plea was voluntary and his reliance on plea counsel's sentencing prediction was unreasonable, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 S.W.3d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guerra-hernandez-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack