Johnson v. State

320 S.W.3d 242, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1233, 2010 WL 3553869
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 2010·No. ED 93692·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antione Johnson (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts, not conclusively refuted by the record, that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit to being a prior and persistent offender and prior and persistent drug offender without requiring the State to independently prove his prior and persistent offender and prior and persistent drug offender status.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

Johnson v. State, 320 S.W.3d 242, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1233, 2010 WL 3553869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

320 S.W.3d 242 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roundtree v. State
320 S.W.3d 242 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)