Case ID: sw2d_947/html/0128-01.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

Richard SALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 53148.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    June 24, 1997.
    Jeannie Arterburn Willibey, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
    Before ELLIS, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HOWARD, JJ.
   ORDER

PER curiam:.

Movant claims the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24,035 Motion because his plea lacked voluntariness in that he was unaware that in the event his probation was revoked, he would have to serve the full suspended sentence, and that his probation could be revoked for failure to follow a directive initiated by his probation officer. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).