Lomax v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lomax v. State

260 S.W.3d 437, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2008 WL 3843576

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90438

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 437 (Lomax 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

Lomax v. State, 260 S.W.3d 437, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2008 WL 3843576 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Lomax (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of tampering in the first degree, Section 569.080.1(2) RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to serve twelve years’ imprisonment. Movant subsequently filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, which the motion court denied without a hearing.

Movant raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims plea counsel misinformed him about the term of imprisonment he would receive upon pleading guilty, thus violating his due process rights. Second, Movant claims he was denied due process and should be resen-tenced in that the State failed to present sufficient evidence proving he was a prior and persistent offender.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use *438 of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Lomax (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of tampering in the first degree, Section 569.080.1(2) RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to serve twelve years’ imprisonment. Movant subsequently filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, which the motion court denied without a hearing.

Movant raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims plea counsel misinformed him about the term of imprisonment he would receive upon pleading guilty, thus violating his due process rights. Second, Movant claims he was denied due process and should be resen-tenced in that the State failed to present sufficient evidence proving he was a prior and persistent offender.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use *438 of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 437, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 2008 WL 3843576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomax-v-state-moctapp-2008.