Simpson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simpson v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 18, 1986·No. No. 50326·Published

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.

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

Pincite

706 S.W.2d 610 (Simpson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related