Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watson v. State

264 S.W.3d 655, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2008 WL 2884626

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 2008

DocketWD 67819

StatusPublished

This text of 264 S.W.3d 655 (Watson 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

Watson v. State, 264 S.W.3d 655, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2008 WL 2884626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tom Watson appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. After pleading guilty to five counts of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1990, Appellant was sentenced in Jackson County Circuit Court to twenty years in the Missouri Department of Corrections, with the sentence on two of the counts to be served consecutively. Appellant now claims that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea, and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the insufficient factual basis and for failing to call *656 certain character witnesses to testify at Appellant’s sentencing.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tom Watson appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. After pleading guilty to five counts of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1990, Appellant was sentenced in Jackson County Circuit Court to twenty years in the Missouri Department of Corrections, with the sentence on two of the counts to be served consecutively. Appellant now claims that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea, and that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the insufficient factual basis and for failing to call *656 certain character witnesses to testify at Appellant’s sentencing.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.W.3d 655, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2008 WL 2884626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-moctapp-2008.