Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

497 S.W.3d 356, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 842, 2016 WL 4525310

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103634

StatusPublished

This text of 497 S.W.3d 356 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 497 S.W.3d 356, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 842, 2016 WL 4525310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Reginald Wilson (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without a hearing because the record does not refute his claims that: 1) his counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in Cause No. 1322-CR04771-01 he would be sentenced concurrently to the felony sentence he had previously received for second-degree burglary in Cause No. 1122-CR01563-01; and that 2) the court and his plea counsel failed to inform him and ensure he understood he could receive up to forty years’ imprisonment if he pleaded guilty in Cause No. 1322-CR04771-01.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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

Reginald Wilson (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without a hearing because the record does not refute his claims that: 1) his counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in Cause No. 1322-CR04771-01 he would be sentenced concurrently to the felony sentence he had previously received for second-degree burglary in Cause No. 1122-CR01563-01; and that 2) the court and his plea counsel failed to inform him and ensure he understood he could receive up to forty years’ imprisonment if he pleaded guilty in Cause No. 1322-CR04771-01.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.3d 356, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 842, 2016 WL 4525310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-moctapp-2016.