Case ID: sw3d_84/html/0522-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William BANKSTON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 80672.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
    Sept. 10, 2002.
    Gwenda R. Robinson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joel A. Block, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J„ and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, William Bankston, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He contends his plea attorney misinformed him about the range of punishment, thereby rendering his guilty plea involuntary.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).