Case Name: Lazaro V. GUERRA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-06-18
Citations: 577 S.W.3d 175
Docket Number: No. ED 107116
Parties: Lazaro V. GUERRA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 577
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Lazaro V. GUERRA-HERNANDEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 107116
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
FILED: June 18, 2019
Lisa M. Stroup, 1010 Market St., Ste 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Lazaro Guerra-Hernandez ("Guerra-Hernandez") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Guerra-Hernandez alleges that the motion court erred in denying his motion because he would not have pleaded guilty had plea counsel not erroneously advised him that by pleading guilty he would only be sentenced to a 120-day treatment program under Section 559.115. Because the record conclusively demonstrates that Guerra-Hernandez's guilty plea was voluntary and his reliance on plea counsel's sentencing prediction was unreasonable, we affirm the motion court's judgment.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).