Case ID: sw3d_181/html/0632-02.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

Andy GILLETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 65529.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    Jan. 17, 2006.
    Nancy A. McKerrow, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jayne T. Woods, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before SPINDEN, P.J., and HOWARD and HOLLIGER, JJ.
   Order

PER CURIAM.

Andy Gillette moved for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. Gillette alleged that his plea counsel was ineffective for promising Gillette that if he took the State’s offer of a ten-year sentence, he would also be sentenced to long-term drug treatment, which did not occur. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Gillette’s motion. Gillette argues on appeal that the motion court’s findings and conclusions that plea counsel was not ineffective were clearly erroneous. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).