Thompson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

594 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3441

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 1980

DocketNo. 41062

StatusPublished

This text of 594 S.W.2d 958 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 594 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3441 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals from an order of the circuit court overruling his Rule 27.26 motion to vacate judgment and sentence.

In 1977, movant pleaded guilty to charges of burglary second degree and stealing, and attempted burglary first degree. The trial court accepted a plea bargain agreement between the state and movant and sentenced movant to seven years and five years for burglary and stealing, these sentences to run concurrently with a prior ten year sentence,¹ and four years on the attempted burglary first degree, this sentence to run consecutive to the other sentences.

Movant maintained in the trial court that his pleas to the various charges were coerced by the trial judge and his attorney, and that his attorney was ineffective. He argues on this appeal that the Court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous and therefore its judgment must be reversed.

“In all Rule 27.26 proceedings, we must affirm the ruling of the trial judge unless it appears his findings, conclusions and judgment are ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” Laney v. State, 584 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1979). The court in overruling the motion made specific and extensive findings of fact. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule 27.26 hearing, and the transcript of movant’s guilty pleas and sentencing, wherein movant admits his guilt, admits that he expected to be found guilty by a jury, and admits that he pleaded guilty expecting a fourteen year sentence, a sentence which he received. We find that the trial court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears, and an extensive opinion reciting the law would have no precedential value.

Therefore, in compliance with Rule 84.-16(b) we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DOWD, P. J., and CRIST, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals from an order of the circuit court overruling his Rule 27.26 motion to vacate judgment and sentence.

In 1977, movant pleaded guilty to charges of burglary second degree and stealing, and attempted burglary first degree. The trial court accepted a plea bargain agreement between the state and movant and sentenced movant to seven years and five years for burglary and stealing, these sentences to run concurrently with a prior ten year sentence,¹ and four years on the attempted burglary first degree, this sentence to run consecutive to the other sentences.

Movant maintained in the trial court that his pleas to the various charges were coerced by the trial judge and his attorney, and that his attorney was ineffective. He argues on this appeal that the Court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous and therefore its judgment must be reversed.

“In all Rule 27.26 proceedings, we must affirm the ruling of the trial judge unless it appears his findings, conclusions and judgment are ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” Laney v. State, 584 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1979). The court in overruling the motion made specific and extensive findings of fact. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the Rule 27.26 hearing, and the transcript of movant’s guilty pleas and sentencing, wherein movant admits his guilt, admits that he expected to be found guilty by a jury, and admits that he pleaded guilty expecting a fourteen year sentence, a sentence which he received. We find that the trial court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears, and an extensive opinion reciting the law would have no precedential value.

Therefore, in compliance with Rule 84.-16(b) we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

DOWD, P. J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack