Jackson v. State, 45722
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 45722,45722 |
| Citation | 654 S.W.2d 105 |
| Parties | Ollie Lee JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David B. Agnew, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., George Peach, Circuit Atty., Jefferson City, Douglas Forsyth, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis City, for respondent.
Appeal from the denial of movant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). We affirm.
Movant was charged with first degree assault. The trial began on April 20, 1981. On April 21, 1981, plea negotiations resulted in defendant accepting the state's plea bargain offer. The trial court then proceeded to conduct the guilty plea hearing pursuant to Rule 24.02. Movant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. On May 29, 1981, movant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The hearing was held on November 6, 1981.
After imposition of sentence, the trial court may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea only to correct manifest injustice. Rule 29.07(d). Movant complains he was the victim of manifest injustice because he did not understand the nature of the charge at the time he entered his guilty plea in that he raised a justification, which if proved, would constitute a defense of the charge alleged.
In an appeal of a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the burden is on the movant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the court erred in overruling his motion. State v. Nielsen, 547 S.W.2d 153, 158 (Mo.App.1977). Appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the ruling of the trial court was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion Id; Rule 27.26(i), (j).
A review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing reveals movant understood the nature of the charge and entered his guilty plea to the first degree assault charge voluntarily. Movant disagrees however, arguing his lack of understanding of the nature of the charge is evidenced in his reference, at the hearing, to facts that might have supported the defense of justification.
At the guilty plea hearing, movant recountered that at the time of the stabbing, "the only thing I was concerned about was my safety." Movant alleges the trial court erred in its failure to further inquire into this possible claim of self-defense.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samuels v. State, 15807
...the movant had not established a grounds for the relief sought is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. Jackson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App.1983). The judgment of the motion court is FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur. HOGAN, J., not participating. 1 Movant's sente......
-
State v. Abernathy
...on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court was incorrect in denying his motion. Jackson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App.1983). Ultimately the question to be answered is whether the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. Nielsen, 547 S.W.2d at 159......
-
State v. Hasnan, WD
...the defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, error in the motion court's ruling. Jackson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App.1983); Cowan, 615 S.W.2d at 511. In rejecting the appellant's request for relief, the trial court stated that "the Court [is not] oblig......
-
State v. Galvan
...on the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial court was incorrect in denying his motion. Jackson v. State, 654 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App.1983). Ultimately the question to be answered is whether the plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. Nielsen, 547 S.W.2d at 159......