Watson v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Murta v. State

    257 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    Appellate review of an order sustaining or denying a motion for post-conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 437 (Mo.App. 2006). "[T]he findings of the motion court are presumptively correct."

  2. Graven v. State

    343 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times
    In Graven, the Southern District rejected an offender's claim that evidence of sudden passion was a required part of the factual basis for his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter.

    "[T]he clearly erroneous standard is satisfied only if after a review of the entire record we are left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 437 (Mo.App. 2006). Graven bore the burden of proving the grounds asserted for post-conviction relief by a preponderance of the evidence.

  3. Weekley v. State

    265 S.W.3d 319 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 18 times

    "It is well-settled that a movant's failure to present evidence at a hearing to provide factual support for a claim in his or her post-conviction motion constitutes an abandonment of that claim." Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 438 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006). As such, Movant has effectively abandoned these claims and there is no need to remand the case for the entry of findings and conclusions on them.

  4. Cole v. State

    223 S.W.3d 927 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding that motion court was not presented with substantial evidence to rebut presumption of sound trial strategy when trial counsel did not testify and movant produced no other evidence

    The motion court was not presented with substantial evidence to rebut that presumption. See Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 438 (Mo.App. 2006). McKerrow did not testify, and Cole presented no other evidence that McKerrow's decision not to raise that particular issue on appeal fell "outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance."

  5. Wynes v. State

    628 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    "It is well-settled that a movant's failure to present evidence at a hearing to provide factual support for a claim in his or her post-conviction motion constitutes an abandonment of that claim." Id. at 932 (quoting Watson v. State , 210 S.W.3d 434, 438-39 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) ). With respect to the purported threat by Victim, Wynes and his father testified that sometime before Victim was murdered, Victim threatened Wynes's father with a gun.

  6. Conley v. State

    301 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 12 times
    Finding plea voluntary though defendant was not informed that his conduct could cause loss of opportunity for probation under Section 559.115

    We defer to the motion court's credibility determinations. Watts v. State, 248 S.W.3d, 725, 732 (Mo.App.S.D. 2008); Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 437 (Mo.App.S.D. 2006). Because Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous, its order denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

  7. Toten v. State

    No. SD28598 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    "'It is well-settled that a movant's failure to present evidence at a hearing to provide factual support for a claim in his [postconviction] motion constitutes an abandonment of that claim.'" Cole, 223 S.W.3d at 932 (quoting Watson v. State, 210 S.W.3d 434, 438-39 (Mo.App. 2006)). "'A hearing court is not clearly erroneous in refusing to grant relief on an issue which is not supported by evidence at the evidentiary hearing.'" Cole, 223 S.W.3d at 932 (quoting State v.Boone, 869 S.W.2d 70, 78 (Mo.App. 1993)).