607 S.W.2d 173 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1980
Movant’s Rule 27.26 motion sought to vacate his sentence imposed after a guilty plea to the charge of burglary second degree. The motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, movant contends the trial court erred in determining that his plea was voluntarily made in that he had not been informed of the legal elements of the case. Movant did not raise this point in his Rule 27.26 motion; regardless, it is without merit because the movant admitted facts at the time of his plea sufficient to establish the offense of burglary second degree. He may not complain subsequently that he did not understand the nature of the charge. Ballard v. State, 577 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Mo.App.1979).
On appeal, movant also raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Once a plea of guilty is entered, effective
The record here fully establishes the voluntariness of his plea. See, Thomas v. State, Mo., 605 S.W.2d 792 (1980); Chapman v. State, 579 S.W.2d 855 (Mo.App.1979).
Judgment affirmed.