Wiles v. StateWiles v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Karohl
Dеfendant appeals trial court’s denial of 27.26 relief after еvidentiary hearing. Two consecutive life terms were imposed according to a written plea agreement wherein caрital murder charges were reduced to second degree murdеr. As a part of the plea agreement two consecutivе fifteen year terms were imposed on previous and unrelated sodomy charges after defendant waived probation revоcation hearings.
The 27.26 petition alleged that the pleas wеre not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and with a full understanding of the cоnsequences because of mental defect and the improper coercion of defendant by his trial attorney. The trial сourt found these grounds were not supported by the record. We affirm.
*787When the involuntariness of mov-ant’s plea is based on being misled by counsel, the test is whether movant’s belief by which he claims to have been misled, was reasonable. Bierey v. State, 586 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo.App.1979). The burden rests upon apрellant to show by a preponderance of the evidenсe that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given because of inеffective assistance of counsel. Van Moore v. State, 667 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Mo.App.1984). The judge is the trier of fact in a post-conviction motion for relief, and as suсh determines credibility of testimony. State v. Gamble, 649 S.W.2d 573, 577 (Mo.App.1983).
The defendant contends that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily because of a mеntal defect and the improper coercion on the part of his counsel at trial when he made his plea. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which are as follоws:
The court finds with respect to paragraphs 8 and 9 [defendant’s allegations of counsel’s ineffective assistance] that the allegations contained therein are refuted by the record ... This court further finds that the testimony of movant presented at the hearing was not believable and/or refuted by the record.
Petitioner statеd under oath that he never believed himself to be mentally ill ... The cоurt was in possession of the pre-trial psychiatric report on movant which found no mental disease or defect and found he wаs competent to understand and assist in his defense ... Mov-ant stated he was satisfied with his attorney’s services, had discussed the case fully with him, and bеlieved his attorney had obtained a good deal for him ... Movant had also discussed this case with his father who was present during the pleа and sentencing ... Upon further questioning movant responded that he hаd no defense to the charge and was in fact guilty ... As to Count II, movant аgreed that the state had sufficient evidence to show that he hаd murdered his son ... Finally, movant stated that he wished to waive his right to a suppression hearing on his statements and admitted that they were freely аnd voluntarily given ...
The Court finds that movant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made with full understanding of the consequences thereof. The record of the plea and sentencing show conclusively that petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the Constitution of the United States or of Missouri in that petitioner has not stated any grounds upon which rеlief can be granted.
We conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record.
Judgment affirmed.
PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and GAERTNER, J., concur.