Case ID: sw3d_530/html/0592-01.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

Michael A. BARANOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 104988
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: October 10, 2017
    Lisa Stroup, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Cynthia Copeland, Assistant Circuit Attorney, St. Louis, for respondent.
    Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Baranowski (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. On appeal, Movant argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel because plea counsel (1) erroneously advised Movant that he would be sentenced to a total seven years’ imprisonment if he pleaded guilty; (2) coerced Movant into pleading guilty; and (3) failed to advocate that Movant receive a more favorable sentencing disposition by calling witnesses on Movant’s behalf during the sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).