Case Name: Peter Byron SOCHA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-05-15
Citations: 547 S.W.3d 160
Docket Number: No. ED 105136
Parties: Peter Byron SOCHA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 547
Pages: 160–160

Head Matter:
Peter Byron SOCHA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105136
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Filed: May 15, 2018
Jedd Christian Schneider, Clayton, MO, for appellant.
Joshua Hawley, Evan Joseph Buchheim, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Jason M. Sengheiser, Sp. J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Peter Socha appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court clearly erred because he made averments-among them that counsel forced him to enter an Alford plea-which, if true, would entitle him to relief. We disagree and affirm because we find that the motion court did not clearly err in determining that Socha's ineffective-assistance claims were refuted by the record or, even if presumed true, would not warrant relief.
The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).