State v. Tietge

Full title: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dustin Allen Tietge, Appellant.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Nov 25, 2014

449 S.W.3d 790 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

2014-11-25

Richard Gary Dekruyff, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

S. Kathleen (Kate) Webber, Assistant Appellate Defender Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant, Chris Koster, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Per Curiam:

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, The Honorable Shane T. Alexander, Judge
S. Kathleen (Kate) Webber, Assistant Appellate Defender Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant, Chris Koster, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Before Division Three: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin and Gary D. Witt, Judges

Order

Per Curiam:

Richard Dekruyff appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Dekruyff claims that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to intervene when the court granted Dekruyff additional time to plead guilty; and (2) failing to inform both Dekruyff and the court that if Dekruyff did not plead guilty at that time, the State's plea offer would expire. Because Dekruyff's claims on appeal differ from those raised before the motion court, they are not preserved. We affirm the motion court's judgment. Rule 84.16(b).