Wilson v. State

64 S.W.3d 327, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2037, 2001 WL 1464016
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 840
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 20, 2001·No. No. WD 59737·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Wilson appeals from the circuit court’s order denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evi-dentiary hearing because in his motion, he alleged facts, not conclusions, which were not refuted by the record and, if true, established that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel that caused him to plead guilty rather than go to trial in that, pursuant to the advice of counsel, he pled guilty based on a reasonable belief that he would receive a sentence of five years imprisonment, rather than the twelve-year sentence he actually received.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Wilson v. State, 64 S.W.3d 327, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2037, 2001 WL 1464016 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

64 S.W.3d 327 (Wilson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.