Cramlett v. State, 58359
| Citation | 800 S.W.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 58359,58359 |
| Parties | Dale Forrest CRAMLETT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mary K. Anderson, Columbia, for movant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Joseph P. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant seeks post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 from two concurrent ten year sentences imposed after movant pled guilty on two counts of the felony of sale of a controlled substance, marijuana, in violation of § 195.020 RSMo 1986, now repealed.
Movant entered his pleas on the day his cause was set and ready for trial. At the plea hearing, the state announced the evidence would show the following at trial. On December 28, 1988, state's confidential informant was referred to movant's home by a third person for the purpose of buying marijuana. The informant went to movant's home wearing a body microphone and transmitter. The informant introduced himself and after a brief conversation, purchased approximately one pound of marijuana. Two days later, on December 30, 1988, the informant again went to movant's home to follow up on movant's offer to sell another pound of marijuana. This sale was also tape recorded. The tapes of both sales were transcribed and made part of the court record.
Movant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a possible entrapment defense fails for three reasons. First, an entrapment defense is foreclosed by the record. The transcripts of the sales fully reflect the conversations which transpired during the sales. Defendant was willing and ready to engage in the sales. Second, movant in his point relied upon does not state wherein and why he deems the motion court's finding that movant's allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted by movant's testimony at his plea hearing is erroneous. Our review of a dismissal of a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc) cert. denied 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).
Third, during his plea hearing movant stated: Where a defendant repeatedly assures the court at his guilty-plea hearing that he is satisfied with his defense counsel's performance and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hurtt, s. 17140
...Court that he has no complaints or criticism of his trial counsel should not be later heard to claim to the contrary. Cramlett v. State, 800 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Mo.App.1990). If that were not the law, there would be no point in Supreme Court Rule 29.07(b)(4) which requires the trial court to c......
-
State v. Driver
...State v. Pendleton, 860 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Mo.App.1993); Townsend v. State, 854 S.W.2d 496, 497-98 (Mo.App.1993); Cramlett v. State, 800 S.W.2d 813, 813-14 (Mo.App.1990). A motion court may properly consider a defendant's factual representations during a Rule 29.07(b)(4) inquiry in considerin......
-
Townsend v. State, 62063
...that he was satisfied with counsel's performance and believed counsel had done everything the movant had requested. Cramlett v. State, 800 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Mo.App.1990). Since the transcripts of movant's guilty plea and sentencing hearings directly refute movant's allegations that his couns......
-
Roland v. State, 17603
...the guilty plea proceeding, then he is not heard to complain later that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Cramlett v. State, 800 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.App.1990). ... Movant has not sustained his burden of proof in this Movant's sole point relied on in this appeal avers the motion cour......