Wharton v. State, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 531

Movant Marcus Wharton pled guilty to four counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action under a substitute information alleging three July 2009 incidents involving four victims.
Movant was charged as a prior and persistent offender and pled guilty on January 28, 2012 after plea negotiations and waivers were explained.
During the plea, Movant testified that he understood rights and the nature of the guilty plea, and that the plea was voluntary.
The State provided the factual basis for the charges, detailing robberies at Family Dollar, GameStop, and a Cricket store, with Deadly weapons used.
Movant was advised sentencing ranges (10–80 years or life for robbery; 3 years to life for armed criminal action) and acknowledged the court could consider the SAR; sentencing was to be after the SAR.
On May 11, 2012, the court sentenced Movant to concurrent 18-year terms on all eight counts; Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion on June 11, 2012, with an amended motion in December 2013, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Plea Counsel's alleged promises render the plea involuntary?	Movant contends Plea Counsel promised a ten-year sentence on each count to induce the plea.	Wharton asserts there were no promises and that the record shows voluntary, informed pleading.	No error; record refutes promise allegation; plea voluntary.
Was Movant coerced or prejudiced by Plea Counsel's alleged pressure?	Movant claims Plea Counsel pressured him to plead guilty despite wanting to go to trial.	Wharton argues counsel’s advice on case strength is not ineffective and Movant affirmed satisfaction with counsel.	No error; record shows Movant repeatedly affirmed satisfaction with counsel; no trial desire shown.

Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (test for evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief)
Bequette v. State, 161 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. App. E.D.2005) (plea not involuntary absent fraud or misrepresentation)
Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. E.D.2003) (courts may rely on guilty-plea record to refute ineffectiveness claims)
Nesbitt v. State, 335 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. App. E.D.2011) (mere counsel prediction or advice does not establish coercion)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court 1985) (standard for determining voluntariness of guilty pleas)
Morales v. State, 104 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. App. E.D.2003) (ineffective assistance relevance post-plea limited to voluntariness)
Wild v. State, 345 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. App. 2011) (reaffirming refusal of post-conviction relief when movant affirms counsel performance)
Golliday v. State, 203 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. App. S.D.2006) (counsel effectiveness given no-fact record supports denial of relief)
Pittman v. State, 331 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. App. W.D.2011) (counsel’s advice about likelihood of conviction does not render ineffectiveness)
Evans v. State, 921 S.W.2d 162 (Mo. App. W.D.1996) (standard for evidentiary hearing in post-conviction claims)
Redeemer v. State, 979 S.W.2d 565 (Mo. App. W.D.1998) (specificity of record refutes ineffective-assistance claims)
Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (clear-error standard for post-conviction findings)