Case Name: Ronald TATE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1991-03-26
Citations: 809 S.W.2d 100
Docket Number: No. 58699
Parties: Ronald TATE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 809
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Ronald TATE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 58699.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 26, 1991.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 22, 1991.
Application to Transfer Denied June 11, 1991.
Earlyne M. Thomas, St. Louis, for mov-ant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Barbara J. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant entered a guilty plea to robbery first degree, § 569.020 RSMo 1986. Mov-ant in his sole point relied upon alleges "the motion court erred in holding that [movant] was afforded effective assistance of counsel and that [movant's] plea of guilty was voluntary . [where] movant was unaware of the conversation at the bench between the judge and his defense counsel concerning the judge's social and personal relationship with the alleged victim's husband...."
This claim fails for two reasons. First, the court sentenced defendant in accordance with a negotiated plea bargain in which defendant received a twelve year sentence to run concurrently with a charge in St. Louis County. For that reason, the charged relationship of judge and victim's husband is irrelevant because the sentence was a matter of agreement between the parties when accepted by the court. Second, the court directed defense counsel to inform movant of the relationship. Counsel "explained the situation to [movant]" and told the court, "my client has [no] problems with continuing." Movant confirmed that announcement. Thus, the record refutes movant's contention his plea was not voluntary, intelligent, and knowing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous.
Judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).