Nesbitt v. State, 335 S.W.3d 67

Movant Clyde Nesbitt pled guilty to one count of attempted statutory rape in the first degree and was placed on five years' probation.
After probation violations, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Nesbitt to ten years' imprisonment.
Nesbitt's counsel filed an amended post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance for coercing the plea by predicting a likely conviction and possible fifteen-year sentence if going to trial.
The motion court denied an evidentiary hearing on the post-conviction claim, and Nesbitt appeals that denial.
During the plea proceeding Nesbitt acknowledged understanding the range of punishment and stated no promises or threats had been made to induce the guilty plea.
The court concluded the plea proceedings refuted Nesbitt's involuntary-plea claim and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Nesbitt's guilty plea involuntary due to ineffective assistance?	Nesbitt claims counsel coerced him by predicting conviction and harsher punishment if trial.	State argues the plea record shows understanding of punishment range and no coercion; mere prediction not coercion.	No involuntary plea; no evidentiary hearing warranted; counsel not ineffective.

Loudermilk v. State, 973 S.W.2d 551 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (review of motion court findings; standards for implied errors)
Coates v. State, 939 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. banc 1997) (prejudice requirement for post-conviction relief)
Grace v. State, 313 S.W.3d 230 (Mo. App. E.D.2010) (plea proceeding refutes involuntary plea claim)
Meeks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 755 (Mo. App. E.D.1994) (prediction of outcomes not coercive)
Tyus v. State, 913 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. App. E.D.1995) (counsel's advice alone not coercion)
White v. State, 954 S.W.2d 703 (Mo. App. W.D.1997) (duty to explain full range of punishment)
Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. App. E.D.2009) (explanation of potential sentences; coercion not shown)