Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

16 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2000 WL 157067

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76008

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.W.3d 624 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 16 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2000 WL 157067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Philip Smith (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his claims that: (1) his guilty plea was uninformed and involuntary because neither counsel nor the court advised him of the applicable 40% minimum prison term he would be required to serve pursuant to Section 558.019 RSMo 1994; and (2) his counsel was ineffective, and his plea was rendered uninformed and involuntary, in that counsel failed to seek a mental evaluation based on Movant’s history of schizophrenia to investigate his capacity to understand the proceedings and a possible defense of mental defect.

[625]*625We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and record on appeal, and we conclude that the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Philip Smith (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his claims that: (1) his guilty plea was uninformed and involuntary because neither counsel nor the court advised him of the applicable 40% minimum prison term he would be required to serve pursuant to Section 558.019 RSMo 1994; and (2) his counsel was ineffective, and his plea was rendered uninformed and involuntary, in that counsel failed to seek a mental evaluation based on Movant’s history of schizophrenia to investigate his capacity to understand the proceedings and a possible defense of mental defect.

[625]*625We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and record on appeal, and we conclude that the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W.3d 624, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2000 WL 157067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2000.