Troupe v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Troupe v. State

766 S.W.2d 722, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 1989 WL 6453

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 1989

DocketNo. 55152

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 766 S.W.2d 722 (Troupe 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

Troupe v. State, 766 S.W.2d 722, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 1989 WL 6453 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The conviction sought to be vacated followed movant’s guilty pleas to burglary in the second degree, possession of heroin, and four counts of stealing-third offense. He was sentenced in the aggregate to eighteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Movant contends the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In his 27.26 motion, movant alleged his counsel was not adequately prepared for trial; he did not discuss the facts of the case with movant or consult with him; and he promised movant a different sentence than he ultimately received.

In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, movant must allege facts, not conclusions, which warrant relief, are not refuted by the record, and result in prejudice to movant. Chapman v. State, 720 S.W.2d 17, 18[1] (Mo.App.1986). Following a guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel is only relevant if it affected the voluntariness of the plea. Gawne v. State, 729 S.W.2d 497, 499[1] (Mo.App.1987).

A review of the transcript of the guilty pleas refutes each of movant’s allegations. When questioned by the trial judge, movant stated he had consulted with his attorney concerning his case and was satisfied with his representation. After hearing the recommended sentences, movant once again stated he was happy with his attorney’s representation. The recommended sentences were greater than the sentences actually pronounced by the trial judge. Thus movant’s allegation that he was promised a sentence less than the one he received does not ring true.

The record discloses movant pled guilty because he was in fact guilty and did so of his own free will and in consideration of a plea bargain arrangement.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The conviction sought to be vacated followed movant’s guilty pleas to burglary in the second degree, possession of heroin, and four counts of stealing-third offense. He was sentenced in the aggregate to eighteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Movant contends the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In his 27.26 motion, movant alleged his counsel was not adequately prepared for trial; he did not discuss the facts of the case with movant or consult with him; and he promised movant a different sentence than he ultimately received.

In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, movant must allege facts, not conclusions, which warrant relief, are not refuted by the record, and result in prejudice to movant. Chapman v. State, 720 S.W.2d 17, 18[1] (Mo.App.1986). Following a guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel is only relevant if it affected the voluntariness of the plea. Gawne v. State, 729 S.W.2d 497, 499[1] (Mo.App.1987).

A review of the transcript of the guilty pleas refutes each of movant’s allegations. When questioned by the trial judge, movant stated he had consulted with his attorney concerning his case and was satisfied with his representation. After hearing the recommended sentences, movant once again stated he was happy with his attorney’s representation. The recommended sentences were greater than the sentences actually pronounced by the trial judge. Thus movant’s allegation that he was promised a sentence less than the one he received does not ring true.

The record discloses movant pled guilty because he was in fact guilty and did so of his own free will and in consideration of a plea bargain arrangement.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 S.W.2d 722, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 106, 1989 WL 6453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troupe-v-state-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack