SANSOUCIE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

SANSOUCIE v. State

362 S.W.3d 486, 2012 WL 942640, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 360

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketED 96664

StatusPublished

This text of 362 S.W.3d 486 (SANSOUCIE 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

SANSOUCIE v. State, 362 S.W.3d 486, 2012 WL 942640, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Sansoucie (“Movant”) appeals the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying her motion without an evidentiary hearing: (1) because her plea counsel was ineffective both in threatening that if Movant went to trial, a jury would convict her and she would receive a non-parolable life sentence, and in informing her that her only option under the circumstances was to plead guilty, and (2) her plea counsel was ineffective in failing to have Movant evaluated by an independently-retained expert before advising Movant to plead guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the *487 claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Sansoucie (“Movant”) appeals the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying her motion without an evidentiary hearing: (1) because her plea counsel was ineffective both in threatening that if Movant went to trial, a jury would convict her and she would receive a non-parolable life sentence, and in informing her that her only option under the circumstances was to plead guilty, and (2) her plea counsel was ineffective in failing to have Movant evaluated by an independently-retained expert before advising Movant to plead guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the *487 claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.W.3d 486, 2012 WL 942640, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sansoucie-v-state-moctapp-2012.