Rivera v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rivera v. State

489 S.W.3d 298, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 136, 2016 WL 615784

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 2016·No. WD 78405·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Alesia L. Rivera appeals from the motion court’s denial of her Rule 24.035 motion. Rivera argues that the motion court erred because she received ineffective assistance of counsel in three respects: (1) her plea counsel erroneously advised her that she would only have to serve one-third of her seven-year sentence; (2) her plea counsel failed to investigate a witness; (3) and her plea counsel failed to investigate potential defenses. Rivera also argues that the motion court erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to support her guilty plea. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per curiam:

Alesia L. Rivera appeals from the motion court’s denial of her Rule 24.035 motion. Rivera argues that the motion court erred because she received ineffective assistance of counsel in three respects: (1) her plea counsel erroneously advised her that she would only have to serve one-third of her seven-year sentence; (2) her plea counsel failed to investigate a witness; (3) and her plea counsel failed to investigate potential defenses. Rivera also argues that the motion court erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to support her guilty plea. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Rivera v. State, 489 S.W.3d 298, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 136, 2016 WL 615784 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

489 S.W.3d 298 (Rivera v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.