Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

211 S.W.3d 627, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 73, 2007 WL 92581

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

DocketED 87663

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.W.3d 627 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 211 S.W.3d 627, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 73, 2007 WL 92581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Williams (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for four counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to six concur *628 rent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in overruling his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) plea counsel erroneously advised Movant he would receive three to seven years’ imprisonment on his convictions, (2) the plea court entered a judgment upon a plea of guilty without an adequate factual basis, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring to Movant’s later uncharged crimes during sentencing. We affirm.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Williams (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for four counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to six concur *628 rent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in overruling his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) plea counsel erroneously advised Movant he would receive three to seven years’ imprisonment on his convictions, (2) the plea court entered a judgment upon a plea of guilty without an adequate factual basis, and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring to Movant’s later uncharged crimes during sentencing. We affirm.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 627, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 73, 2007 WL 92581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-2007.