Mansfield v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mansfield v. State

625 S.W.2d 214, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3810

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1981

DocketNo. 12349

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 625 S.W.2d 214 (Mansfield 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

Mansfield v. State, 625 S.W.2d 214, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3810 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Movant filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to vacate a conviction and sentence [215]*215following a plea of guilty. The trial court found that movant’s plea was entered voluntarily with full understanding of its consequences and denied the motion. Our review is to determine if the trial court’s findings, conclusions, and judgment are erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

Movant contends that the plea was not voluntarily entered because he relied on misstatements made by his attorney. Mov-ant testified that before he pled guilty his attorney said that “he and the Judge would arrange” for movant to serve the sentence in Tennessee and that if he had known he would have to serve it in Jefferson City, he would not have entered the plea. In his testimony movant did not give a reason why he preferred Tennessee. The record shows that before the plea was accepted and sentence imposed, movant denied that he had received any promises which caused him to enter the plea. Although his attorney at the time of the plea was available, he was not called as a witness.

Movant had the burden to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). The only evidence received was movant’s testimony. Even if uncontradicted, the trial judge could disbelieve it. Trimble v. State, 588 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo.App.1979).

In view of movant’s statement before the plea that he had not received any promises which caused him to enter the plea and because the trial judge did not have to believe movant’s testimony, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, neither Wilson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.1973), nor State v. Rose, 440 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.1969), relied on by movant, are applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

BILLINGS, P. J., and HOGAN and TITUS, JJ., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

Movant filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to vacate a conviction and sentence [215]*215following a plea of guilty. The trial court found that movant’s plea was entered voluntarily with full understanding of its consequences and denied the motion. Our review is to determine if the trial court’s findings, conclusions, and judgment are erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

Movant contends that the plea was not voluntarily entered because he relied on misstatements made by his attorney. Mov-ant testified that before he pled guilty his attorney said that “he and the Judge would arrange” for movant to serve the sentence in Tennessee and that if he had known he would have to serve it in Jefferson City, he would not have entered the plea. In his testimony movant did not give a reason why he preferred Tennessee. The record shows that before the plea was accepted and sentence imposed, movant denied that he had received any promises which caused him to enter the plea. Although his attorney at the time of the plea was available, he was not called as a witness.

Movant had the burden to establish his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). The only evidence received was movant’s testimony. Even if uncontradicted, the trial judge could disbelieve it. Trimble v. State, 588 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo.App.1979).

In view of movant’s statement before the plea that he had not received any promises which caused him to enter the plea and because the trial judge did not have to believe movant’s testimony, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, neither Wilson v. State, 490 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.1973), nor State v. Rose, 440 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.1969), relied on by movant, are applicable.

The judgment is affirmed.

BILLINGS, P. J., and HOGAN and TITUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 S.W.2d 214, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansfield-v-state-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack