Roberson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roberson v. State

123 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2004 WL 76437

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

DocketNo. WD 62213

StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.W.3d 919 (Roberson 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

Roberson v. State, 123 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2004 WL 76437 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought under Rule 24.035. Dor-selle Roberson pled guilty to rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000. Before sentencing, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, but the judge denied the motion. Roberson received a twenty-five year prison sentence. Roberson filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment under Rule 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for the reason that plea counsel did not adequately explain the parameters of an “open plea,” that his lawyer did not tell him that he could not withdraw his plea, and that the plea lawyer promised him a ten year sentence if he pled guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. The parties have, however, been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

This is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought under Rule 24.035. Dor-selle Roberson pled guilty to rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000. Before sentencing, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, but the judge denied the motion. Roberson received a twenty-five year prison sentence. Roberson filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment under Rule 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for the reason that plea counsel did not adequately explain the parameters of an “open plea,” that his lawyer did not tell him that he could not withdraw his plea, and that the plea lawyer promised him a ten year sentence if he pled guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. The parties have, however, been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.W.3d 919, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 40, 2004 WL 76437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-state-moctapp-2004.