Case Name: William C. SHANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-10-23
Citations: 559 S.W.3d 415
Docket Number: No. ED 105639
Parties: William C. SHANNON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 559
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
William C. SHANNON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 105639
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: October 23, 2018
FOR APPELLANT: Randall Brachman, Susan A. DeGeorge, Mary S. Choi, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER Curiam
William Shannon pled guilty in St. Charles County circuit court to two counts of second-degree assault arising out of Shannon attempting to run his ex-girlfriend and another man off the road by swerving his vehicle into their vehicle. Shannon was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years' imprisonment on each charge. We now consider the denial of Shannon's Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Shannon raises two points on appeal, arguing his plea counsel was ineffective for: 1) failing to investigate and call his father, James Padgett ("Father"), at his sentencing hearing to present mitigating evidence regarding Shannon's difficult childhood; and 2) guaranteeing Shannon would receive long-term treatment if he entered an open plea. The motion court denied Shannon's claims, finding plea counsel's decision to not call Father to testify at sentencing was reasonable, that Shannon failed to show how he was prejudiced by Father not being called, and that counsel's alleged sentencing guarantee was refuted by the record. Because we find that the motion court's denial was not clearly erroneous, we affirm. 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 under to Rule 84.16.