Norris v. StateNorris v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Crist
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidеntiary 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 twеnty-year terms on the robbery charges and another concurrеnt five-year term for resisting arrest as recommended by the State. At thе 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 On December 31, 1987, movant timely filed a pro se motion under now repealed Rule 27.26 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because оf “false misleading promises of counsel ... that led [him] to believe thаt when he got his Mississippi sentence Missouri would release him to Mississipрi.” 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 оn October 13, 1988. At the evidentia-ry hearing both movant and his trial counsel tеstified. Thereafter, on October 26, 1988, the motion court denied his motion and set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The motion cоurt determined “movant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily given and intelleсtually made.” The motion court found movant’s testimony not credible but fоund 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 bеcause the motion court did not consider whether movant’s mistakеn belief was reasonable.
When a movant claims his plea wаs involuntary because he was misled by counsel, the test is whether movаnt’s belief was reasonable. Moore v. State, 754 S.W.2d 40[1] (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 chаrges 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 any negotiations for Mississippi.
Movant’s own testimony from the guilty plеa proceedings also refute “movant’s allegations. Movаnt was asked several times whether he thought trial counsel had donе a good job for him for which he answered, “Yes.” Further, when the judge askеd movant, “Has anyone made any promises to you concеrning your plea, such as, the amount of time you might have to serve оr the possibility of probation other than a negotiated plеa that you and your lawyer has worked out with the Prosecutor ... ?” he answered, “No, sir.” The judge informed movant even if any other promises hаd been made the court was not bound by them nor was the court aware of any other promises other than the State’s recommendation. When asked if movant understood this, he answered, “Yes, sir.”
It is the job оf the motion court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Moore v. State, 754 S.W.2d at 40[2]. The motion court was free to disbelieve movant’s testimony at the evidentiary hеaring. Id. The motion court was not clearly erroneous in finding movant’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intellectually made and mov-ant “failed to meet his burden of establishing grounds for relief.”
Judgment affirmed.
GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.