Case ID: sw3d_109/html/0223-01.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

Kevin L. PRESBERRY, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 81691.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 30, 2003.
    Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen K. Kramer, Assistant Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY K. HOFF and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Presberry (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.030 RSMo 1994. The trial court imposed a suspended imposition of sentence with five years probation. Later, Movant’s probation was revoked and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment. Movant thereafter filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, alleging that his plea counsel failed to advise him of the maximum sentence range if his probation was subsequently revoked, and failed to investigate a witness. This appeal follows the denial of Movant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be meritless. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).