Case Name: Samuel LOMAX, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-06-04
Citations: 399 S.W.3d 925
Docket Number: No. ED 99164
Parties: Samuel LOMAX, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J. and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 399
Pages: 925–925

Head Matter:
Samuel LOMAX, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 99164.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
June 4, 2013.
Roxanna A. Mason, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Mary H. Moore, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J. and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Lomax (Movant) appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because: 1) he alleged facts which, if true, would warrant relief, 2) the alleged facts were not refuted by the record, and 3) he was prejudiced as he pled guilty because counsel informed him that he would receive a 7-year sentence, but, instead, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. We find no error and affirm.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.