Trotter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Trotter v. State

285 S.W.3d 826, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2009 WL 1758950

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketED 91467

StatusPublished

This text of 285 S.W.3d 826 (Trotter 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

Trotter v. State, 285 S.W.3d 826, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2009 WL 1758950 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Preston Trotter (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing 1 Movant argues the motion court clearly erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) Movant’s plea counsel told him that if he did not plead guilty pursuant to the plea bargain, he would definitely be found guilty following a jury trial and the judge would sentence him to more time than provided for in the plea bargain; and (2) the plea court’s jurisdic *827 tion had expired due to a violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detain-ers Law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).

1

. The motion court initially granted an evi-dentiary hearing with respect only to Mov-ant’s claim 8a.2, which was that Movant's plea counsel affirmatively misadvised him on the amount of time he would have to spend in prison before becoming eligible for parole. However, Movant voluntarily dismissed claim 8a.2. The motion court did riot grant an evi-dentiary hearing with respect to any of Mov-ant's other claims.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Preston Trotter (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing 1 Movant argues the motion court clearly erred when it denied his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) Movant’s plea counsel told him that if he did not plead guilty pursuant to the plea bargain, he would definitely be found guilty following a jury trial and the judge would sentence him to more time than provided for in the plea bargain; and (2) the plea court’s jurisdic *827 tion had expired due to a violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detain-ers Law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).

1

. The motion court initially granted an evi-dentiary hearing with respect only to Mov-ant’s claim 8a.2, which was that Movant's plea counsel affirmatively misadvised him on the amount of time he would have to spend in prison before becoming eligible for parole. However, Movant voluntarily dismissed claim 8a.2. The motion court did riot grant an evi-dentiary hearing with respect to any of Mov-ant's other claims.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 S.W.3d 826, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2009 WL 1758950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trotter-v-state-moctapp-2009.