Case ID: sw3d_443/html/0048-02.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

Jonathan SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 100610.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Sept. 23, 2014.
    Matthew Huckeby, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before: KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, Jr., J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jonathan Smith (“Smith”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief seeking to set aside his guilty plea. Smith claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he pleaded facts not refuted by the record that entitle him to relief; specifically, that plea counsel was ineffective in both failing to advise Smith that he could file a motion to suppress certain evidence and in failing to file such a motion. Smith posits that he was prejudiced by this ineffective assistance of counsel in that it rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).