Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012

Williams v. State

Williams v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided May 9, 2012 · Dowd, Hoff, Sullivan
366 S.W.3d 90; 2012 WL 1623854; 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 629 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Williams v. State

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Williams (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing, from his blind guilty plea to one count of attempted forcible rape and one count of attempted forcible sodomy. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Nesbitt v. State, 335 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011). Further, Appellant was not entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion because he did not allege facts unrefuted by the record warranting relief from prejudice. Berry v. State, 336 S.W.3d 159, 162 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.