Case ID: sw3d_125/html/0363-01.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

Mario AMERSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 82744.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Jan. 20, 2004.
    Gary E. Brotherton, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and MARY K. HOFF, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mario Amerson appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. He contends his plea counsel’s mistaken sentencing assurance rendered his guilty plea unintelligent and involuntary.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).