Opinion
No. ED 108465
09-01-2020
Eric D. HICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Carol D. Jansen, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203. FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT: Carol D. Jansen, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1000 West Nifong Boulevard, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.
FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and Michael E. Gardner, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Eric D. Hicks ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant's sole point on appeal argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because sufficient evidence existed at his plea hearing to raise a reasonable doubt about his competence to understand the proceedings and assist in his own defense; thus, he argues the plea court was obligated to sua sponte order a psychiatric examination under section 552.020 to determine his competency before accepting his guilty plea. The motion court denied Movant's motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding Movant failed to present evidence showing his mental health precluded him from understanding the proceedings and assisting in his own defense at the time of his plea.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2).