State v. McMurran

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McMurran

629 S.W.2d 411, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3814

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 1981

DocketNo. 44057

StatusPublished

This text of 629 S.W.2d 411 (State v. McMurran) 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. McMurran, 629 S.W.2d 411, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3814 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Presiding Judge.

On June 24, 1980, movant pled guilty to robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He now appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

His first argument is that there was no factual basis for his plea as required by Rule 24.02(e). This claim is without merit. Movant related all the essential facts constituting the offense and the prosecutor stated that those were the facts the state would show. The judge at the guilty plea proceedings questioned movant at length about his involvement in the offense. There clearly was a factual basis for the plea. Robinson v. State, 482 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Mo.1972); Bounds v. State, 556 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1977).

Movant’s other point is that his lawyer failed to investigate his trial defense of “drugged condition.” This allegation is refuted by the record as movant stated to the court that he was satisfied with counsel’s representation in the case. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974). The files [412]*412and record conclusively show movant is entitled to no relief.

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD and SNYDER, JJ., concur.

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

CRIST, Presiding Judge.

On June 24, 1980, movant pled guilty to robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. He now appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

His first argument is that there was no factual basis for his plea as required by Rule 24.02(e). This claim is without merit. Movant related all the essential facts constituting the offense and the prosecutor stated that those were the facts the state would show. The judge at the guilty plea proceedings questioned movant at length about his involvement in the offense. There clearly was a factual basis for the plea. Robinson v. State, 482 S.W.2d 492, 495 (Mo.1972); Bounds v. State, 556 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1977).

Movant’s other point is that his lawyer failed to investigate his trial defense of “drugged condition.” This allegation is refuted by the record as movant stated to the court that he was satisfied with counsel’s representation in the case. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974). The files [412]*412and record conclusively show movant is entitled to no relief.

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD and SNYDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 S.W.2d 411, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcmurran-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack