Mitchell v. State

311 S.W.3d 909, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 815, 2010 WL 2360629
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 15, 2010·No. WD 71099·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

311 S.W.3d 909 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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