Parsons v. State
This text of 528 S.W.2d 162 (Parsons 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.
Opinion
Movant, Larry Parsons, pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years on each count. Movant filed a Rule 27.26 Motion which sought to vacate the guilty pleas. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. By this appeal movant seeks remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
The movant in his amended motion alleged that he had a “discussion with his trial counsel and the prosecutor. In the setting [he] was offered a sentence of five (5) years on ‘all’ four (4) counts of robbery to run concurrently with a two (2) year sentence ... in a cause involving carrying a concealed weapon.” He further alleged that he entered the plea on the express advice of his counsel with the assurance that the total sentence would be five (5) years. He also alleged that counsel advised him after the hearing that he would have “only five (5) years total”. The substance of movant’s contentions is that he was induced to plead guilty by reason of a promise by his counsel and the prosecutor that he would receive concurrent sentences of five (5) years on the four charges of robbery.
The rule in Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo.1974) is controlling in this case. The court at page 411 said:
“A 27.26 movant, in order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, must plead facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle him to relief and must show that such factual allegations are not refuted by facts elicited at the guilty plea hearing.”
We have carefully reviewed the record of the proceeding with respect to the movant’s pleas which covers 19 pages of the transcript. The proceeding can best be described as meticulous. The court thoroughly probed every aspect of the plea as to each count. The testimony specifically refutes the allegations of the motion that promises of a lesser punishment had been made to movant.1
[164]*164Prior to sentencing on each of the four counts the State made a recommendation of seven years. On each occasion movant’s counsel was asked if he had any comment for the record. The movant was then granted allocution on each count before the court pronounced sentence.
The files and records support the court’s finding that movant’s plea of guilty was freely and voluntarily given, and knowingly made; that he knew the consequences of his plea when it was entered; and that the allegations of the 27.26 motion are fully refuted. The trial court properly dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Smith v. State, supra; Ross v. State, 517 S.W.2d 185 (Mo.App.1974). To rule otherwise would be to relegate such a painstaking proceeding as the record discloses in this case, to “an exercise in futility”. See Colbert v. State, 486 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Mo.1972).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
528 S.W.2d 162, 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 2276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-state-moctapp-1975.