Koch v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Koch v. State

767 S.W.2d 631, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 476, 1989 WL 34560

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1989

DocketNo. 55576

StatusPublished

This text of 767 S.W.2d 631 (Koch 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

Koch v. State, 767 S.W.2d 631, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 476, 1989 WL 34560 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1986, pursuant to a guilty plea and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

In his Rule 24.035 motion, movant alleged his guilty plea was involuntarily and unintelligently entered due to ineffective [632]*632assistance of counsel. More specifically, movant alleged defense counsel failed to interview proposed defense witnesses, failed to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, and failed to interview the witnesses endorsed by the prosecutor. No further facts were contained in the motion to support these allegations.

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief, a movant must state facts, not conclusions, which if true, warrant relief and which are not refuted by the record. In addition, the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to movant. Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519[1] (Mo.App.1987).

Movant’s motion is deficient in two respects. It is devoid of facts in support of the conclusions contained therein. Moreover, the allegations are refuted by the record of the guilty plea hearing where movant testified his attorney had investigated the case to his satisfaction and interviewed all the witnesses known to movant. See Smith v. State, 743 S.W.2d 900, 901[5] (Mo.App.1988) (to be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing as to the voluntariness of a guilty plea, the allegations contained in the motion must not be refuted by the facts elicited at the guilty plea proceeding). For these reasons, the trial court’s denial of movant’s 24.035 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing was not clearly erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and DOWD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1986, pursuant to a guilty plea and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

In his Rule 24.035 motion, movant alleged his guilty plea was involuntarily and unintelligently entered due to ineffective [632]*632assistance of counsel. More specifically, movant alleged defense counsel failed to interview proposed defense witnesses, failed to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime, and failed to interview the witnesses endorsed by the prosecutor. No further facts were contained in the motion to support these allegations.

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief, a movant must state facts, not conclusions, which if true, warrant relief and which are not refuted by the record. In addition, the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to movant. Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519[1] (Mo.App.1987).

Movant’s motion is deficient in two respects. It is devoid of facts in support of the conclusions contained therein. Moreover, the allegations are refuted by the record of the guilty plea hearing where movant testified his attorney had investigated the case to his satisfaction and interviewed all the witnesses known to movant. See Smith v. State, 743 S.W.2d 900, 901[5] (Mo.App.1988) (to be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing as to the voluntariness of a guilty plea, the allegations contained in the motion must not be refuted by the facts elicited at the guilty plea proceeding). For these reasons, the trial court’s denial of movant’s 24.035 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing was not clearly erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and DOWD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 S.W.2d 631, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 476, 1989 WL 34560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koch-v-state-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack