Socha v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Socha v. State

547 S.W.3d 160

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105136

StatusPublished

This text of 547 S.W.3d 160 (Socha 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

Socha v. State, 547 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Peter Socha appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court clearly erred because he made averments-among them that counsel forced him to enter an Alford plea-which, if true, would entitle him to relief. We disagree and affirm because we find that the motion court did not clearly err in determining that Socha's ineffective-assistance claims were refuted by the record or, even if presumed true, would not warrant relief.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Peter Socha appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court clearly erred because he made averments-among them that counsel forced him to enter an Alford plea-which, if true, would entitle him to relief. We disagree and affirm because we find that the motion court did not clearly err in determining that Socha's ineffective-assistance claims were refuted by the record or, even if presumed true, would not warrant relief.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 S.W.3d 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/socha-v-state-moctapp-2018.