Richardson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Richardson v. State

750 S.W.2d 623, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 534, 1988 WL 35336

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1988

DocketNo. 53512

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 750 S.W.2d 623 (Richardson 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

Richardson v. State, 750 S.W.2d 623, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 534, 1988 WL 35336 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. In that motion he sought to vacate guilty pleas to three counts of forgery and one count of stealing over $150. He was sentenced to four concurrent ten-year sentences. We affirm.

In his Rule 27.26 motion movant alleges his trial counsel did not investigate and contact “the female person he could attempt to contact through the police (Security Guard) report,” and did not provide “sufficiently adequate counseling or services.”

In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing movant must plead facts, not conclusions, which, if true would entitle him to relief and which are not refuted by the guilty plea transcript. Pinkard v. State, 694 S.W.2d 761, 762[1] (Mo.App.1985). Movant’s motion does not indicate what his attorney would have discovered if he had contacted the witness nor what she presumably would have testified to if movant’s case had gone to trial. Without such information the motion does not show any prejudice to movant by the alleged failure to contact the witness nor does it show how movant’s plea was involuntarily or unknowingly made. Sanders v. State, 716 S.W.2d 844, 845[1] (Mo.App.1986).

On appeal movant acknowledges there are numerous cases standing for the proposition that when there is a guilty plea, adequacy of trial counsel is only material to the extent it affects the voluntary nature of the guilty plea. The gravemen of his appeal is that we modify those cases. We decline to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. In that motion he sought to vacate guilty pleas to three counts of forgery and one count of stealing over $150. He was sentenced to four concurrent ten-year sentences. We affirm.

In his Rule 27.26 motion movant alleges his trial counsel did not investigate and contact “the female person he could attempt to contact through the police (Security Guard) report,” and did not provide “sufficiently adequate counseling or services.”

In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing movant must plead facts, not conclusions, which, if true would entitle him to relief and which are not refuted by the guilty plea transcript. Pinkard v. State, 694 S.W.2d 761, 762[1] (Mo.App.1985). Movant’s motion does not indicate what his attorney would have discovered if he had contacted the witness nor what she presumably would have testified to if movant’s case had gone to trial. Without such information the motion does not show any prejudice to movant by the alleged failure to contact the witness nor does it show how movant’s plea was involuntarily or unknowingly made. Sanders v. State, 716 S.W.2d 844, 845[1] (Mo.App.1986).

On appeal movant acknowledges there are numerous cases standing for the proposition that when there is a guilty plea, adequacy of trial counsel is only material to the extent it affects the voluntary nature of the guilty plea. The gravemen of his appeal is that we modify those cases. We decline to do so.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 S.W.2d 623, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 534, 1988 WL 35336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-moctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack