Mitchell v. State

311 S.W.3d 909, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 815, 2010 WL 2360629
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 15, 2010
DocketWD 71099
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 311 S.W.3d 909 (Mitchell 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
Mitchell v. State, 311 S.W.3d 909, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 815, 2010 WL 2360629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Charles Mitchell appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Mitchell claims that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because he did not enter his guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently in that he reasonably believed, based on plea counsel’s assurances, that he would not be charged as a prior and persistent offender. Mitchell contends that but for counsel’s assurances, he would have insisted on going to trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

Goacher v. Heartland Regional Medical Center
311 S.W.3d 909 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
311 S.W.3d 909, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 815, 2010 WL 2360629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-moctapp-2010.