Case ID: sw3d_530/html/0645-02.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

William A. CHRISTMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    WD 79777
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    ORDER FILED: October 24, 2017
    S. Kate Webber, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.
    Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
    
      Before Division One: James Edward Welsh, P.J., Lisa White Hardwick, Gary D. Witt, JJ.
   ORDER

Per Curiam:

Appellant William A, Christman (“Christman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing, In his sole point on appeal, Christman argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to act as a reasonably competent attorney by neglecting to timely inform the prosecutor that Christman had accepted a four-year plea agreement with the State. Christman argues that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance in that there is a reasonable probability that had counsel provided effective assistance he would have received a lesser sentence. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).