Opinion
No. ED 106840
08-13-2019
Edward H. ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT, Alexandria A. Shah, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT, Justin A. Moody, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT, Alexandria A. Shah, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT, Justin A. Moody, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Edward H. Adams ("Adams") appeals the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended motion for post-conviction relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 24.035. On February 27, 2017, Adams pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in the first degree. On August 29, 2017, Adams filed his pro-se motion under Rule 24.035, which was timely amended on January 23, 2018, after an extension was granted and both the guilty plea and sentencing transcripts had been filed. The Motion Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 10, 2018.
All rule citations are to Missouri Supreme Court rules (2016) unless otherwise indicated.
--------
Adams raises three points on appeal.
In Point I, Adams contends the Motion Court clearly erred in denying him post-conviction relief without evidentiary hearing because an insufficient factual basis rendered his plea not knowing and voluntary. In Points II and III, Adams contends the Motion Court clearly erred, claiming he received ineffective assistance of plea counsel, first, when a competent attorney would have recognized an insufficient factual basis for the plea and, second, when his attorney did not file and litigate a motion to suppress evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.
Finding no clear error, we affirm under Rule 84.16.