Simpson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simpson v. State

706 S.W.2d 610, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3772

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1986

DocketNo. 50326

StatusPublished

This text of 706 S.W.2d 610 (Simpson 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

Simpson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 610, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3772 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Defendant’s Rule 27.26 motion was summarily denied. He contended his sentences to two seven-year consecutive terms should have been for concurrent terms. The guilty plea record, after the court’s repeated warnings, showed defendant was satisfied with his counsel and knew he could be sentenced to two consecutive 7-year terms. Thus, the record clearly refuted defendant’s contention. Affirmed in accordance with Davis v. State, 552 S.W.2d 68[2, 3].

SMITH, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

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

SUMMARY OPINION

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Defendant’s Rule 27.26 motion was summarily denied. He contended his sentences to two seven-year consecutive terms should have been for concurrent terms. The guilty plea record, after the court’s repeated warnings, showed defendant was satisfied with his counsel and knew he could be sentenced to two consecutive 7-year terms. Thus, the record clearly refuted defendant’s contention. Affirmed in accordance with Davis v. State, 552 S.W.2d 68[2, 3].

SMITH, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 S.W.2d 610, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-state-moctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack