Willie ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 57081.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 20, 1990.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 25, 1990.
Application to Transfer Denied June 19, 1990.
The allegation of trial counsel ineffectiveness in failing to bring all relevant information before the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress appears for the first time in movant‘s brief on appeal. An issue not raised in a Rule 27.26 motion and not presented to the motion court for determination will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Moton v. State, 772 S.W.2d 689, 692[5] (Mo.App.1989); Malady v. State, 762 S.W.2d 442, 444[4] (Mo.App. 1988).
Judgment affirmed.
DOWD, P.J., and SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.
evidentiary hearing. On February 4, 1988, appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of heroin for which he was sentenced to two consecutive five year sentences without parole. Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel‘s alleged promise of parole if he pled guilty. We have reviewed this allegation, the entirety of the record on which it is based, the findings and conclusions of the motion court, and we do not find the court‘s findings to be clearly erroneous. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989); Rule 24.035(j). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum was sent to the parties setting forth the grounds for our decision.
Ilene A. Goodman, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Willie Adams, appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an