James v. State

361 S.W.3d 442, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1575, 2011 WL 5921460

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Max James appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. For his sole point on appeal, James claims that he was coerced into pleading guilty by his counsel’s ineffective assistance. James claims that trial counsel failed to prepare for trial by failing to investigate a defense that his traffic stop was conducted without reasonable suspicion. Specifically, James argues that had his counsel asked for a copy of the radar gun reading and any videotape of the stop, James would not have pled guilty to the charge of driving without a valid license but would have exercised his right to a jury trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).