Washington v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Washington v. State

519 S.W.3d 549, 2017 WL 2539822, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 582

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2017

DocketWD 79373

StatusPublished

This text of 519 S.W.3d 549 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 519 S.W.3d 549, 2017 WL 2539822, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Terry D. Washington pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County to one count of driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender. The circuit court sentenced Washington to four years’ imprisonment. Washington filed a motion for postconviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035. As relevant here, Washington’s motion alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, because his plea counsel erroneously promised Washington that he would be sentenced to thirty days in jail, and then placed on probation. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Washington appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Terry D. Washington pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County to one count of driving while intoxicated as a persistent offender. The circuit court sentenced Washington to four years’ imprisonment. Washington filed a motion for postconviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035. As relevant here, Washington’s motion alleged that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary, because his plea counsel erroneously promised Washington that he would be sentenced to thirty days in jail, and then placed on probation. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Washington appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 S.W.3d 549, 2017 WL 2539822, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-moctapp-2017.