Smith v. State
360 S.W.3d 927, 2012 WL 787035, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 307
Opinion
ORDER
Marcus Smith appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion, in which he claimed that he was denied his rights to effective assistance of counsel and to due process of law. He asserts that he was coerced to plead guilty as he reasonably believed his attorney was not prepared for trial and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea because counsel misrepresented to him the law of accomplice liability. We affirm the motion court’s denial of the post-conviction motion. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. State, 360 S.W.3d 927, 2012 WL 787035, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
360 S.W.3d 927 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Morales
360 S.W.3d 927 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)