Case ID: sw3d_536/html/0801-01.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

Montrel BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 105103
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
    FILED: January 9, 2018
    Maleaner Harvey, 1010 Market St., Ste 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
    Joshua Hawley, Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
    Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Montrel Brown (“Brown”) appeals from the denial of his Rule. 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Brown was convicted of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to sell and' sentenced to twelve years in prison. On appeal, Brown raises two points. First, Brown argues that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to determine Brown’s eligibility for, and to obtain a sentence including, long-term drug treatment under Section 217.362. Second, Brown claims that plea counsel was ineffective for advising him that there was a “zero percent requirement” on his conviction and that he would serve, no more than eighteen months in prison.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with .a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).