Case ID: sw3d_392/html/0534-02.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

Maurice HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 98309.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Feb. 26, 2013.
    
      Maleaner R. Harvey, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief -without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising him that if he pleaded guilty, he would be required to serve no more than three years on his total sentence of fifteen years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).