Missouri Court of Appeals, 2017

Christman v. State

Christman v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided October 24, 2017 · Hardwick, Welsh, Witt
530 S.W.3d 645 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Christman v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Appellant William A, Christman (“Christman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing, In his sole point on appeal, Christman argues the circuit court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to act as a reasonably competent attorney by neglecting to timely inform the prosecutor that Christman had accepted a four-year plea agreement with the State. Christman argues that he was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance in that there is a reasonable probability that had counsel provided effective assistance he would have received a lesser sentence. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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