State v. Foreman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Foreman

309 S.W.3d 872, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2010 WL 1860035

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

DocketED 93733

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 309 S.W.3d 872 (State v. Foreman) 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

State v. Foreman, 309 S.W.3d 872, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2010 WL 1860035 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alcee Foreman, III (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he asserted facts not refuted by the record that he pleaded guilty involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently (1) due to plea counsel’s failure to advise Movant that if he proceeded to trial, he would have the right to testify on his own behalf, even if counsel did not want him to, and (2) due to plea counsel’s failure to advise Movant that he would have to follow all of the rules of the treatment program or risk being terminated from the program and having to serve his sentences.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alcee Foreman, III (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he asserted facts not refuted by the record that he pleaded guilty involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently (1) due to plea counsel’s failure to advise Movant that if he proceeded to trial, he would have the right to testify on his own behalf, even if counsel did not want him to, and (2) due to plea counsel’s failure to advise Movant that he would have to follow all of the rules of the treatment program or risk being terminated from the program and having to serve his sentences.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.3d 872, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2010 WL 1860035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foreman-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack