Norris v. State, 55861
| Decision Date | 12 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55861,55861 |
| Citation | 778 S.W.2d 823 |
| Parties | Bobby NORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
On April 23, 1986, movant, following plea negotiations, entered pleas of guilty on two counts of first degree robbery and one count of resisting arrest. Movant received concurrent twenty-year terms on the robbery charges and another concurrent five-year term for resisting arrest as recommended by the State. At the time, movant also had charges pending in Mississippi. On December 31, 1987, movant timely filed a pro se motion under now repealed Rule 27.26 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because of "false misleading promises of counsel ... that led [him] to believe that when he got his Mississippi sentence Missouri would release him to Mississippi." He alleged these promises proved false and ill-founded and alleged he would not have pleaded guilty in Missouri had he known the promises were false.
Movant was granted an evidentiary hearing on October 13, 1988. At the evidentiary hearing both movant and his trial counsel testified. Thereafter, on October 26, 1988, the motion court denied his motion and set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The motion court determined "movant's plea was knowingly and voluntarily given and intellectually made." The motion court found movant's testimony not credible but found movant's trial counsel's testimony credible and it contradicted movant's testimony.
Movant now appeals alleging the motion court erred in denying his claim his guilty plea was based on a mistaken belief because the motion court did not consider whether movant's mistaken belief was reasonable.
When a movant claims his plea was involuntary because he was misled by counsel, the test is whether movant's belief was reasonable. Moore v. State, 754 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.App.1988).
A thorough review of the record reveals the only evidence which supports movant's contention is his own testimony at the evidentiary hearing. At the motion hearing, movant's trial counsel testified he made it absolutely clear to movant any resolution to movant's Missouri charges would only resolve his problems in Missouri and would not have any relationship with his Mississippi charges. Trial counsel also testified he made sure movant understood the prosecutor had no authority to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Mo. Delta Med. Ctr.
... ... new scientific techniques. See State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, ... 600 (Mo.banc 1991), and Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, ... ...
-
Long v. Delta Medical Center
... ... See State v. Davis, 814 S.W.2d 593, 600 (Mo.banc 1991), and Alsbach v. Bader, 700 S.W.2d 823, 828 (Mo.banc ... ...
-
Downer v. Norman
...but rather whether it was objectively reasonable. , Holt v. State, 811 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (citing Norris v. State, 778 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)). "[I]f it was unreasonable for him to entertain such a belief at the time of the plea proceeding, relief should not be......
-
State v. Rice, WD
...was involuntary because he was misled by his counsel. Such a claim is tested by whether movant's belief was reasonable. Norris v. State, 778 S.W.2d 823, 824 (Mo.App.1989). While an individual may proclaim he had a certain belief and may subjectively believe it, if it was unreasonable for hi......