Opinion
No. ED 111131
10-17-2023
Dennis J. HUGHES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Stephanie A. Hoeplinger, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT: Alex D. Beezley, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT: Stephanie A. Hoeplinger, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Alex D. Beezley, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and Cristian M. Stevens, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM Dennis J. Hughes ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment after it overruled his amended Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal alleging the motion court clearly erred in overruling his amended motion. In Point I, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred in finding his plea counsel ("Counsel") was not ineffective for failing to advise him of the viability of proceeding to trial to assert a justification defense. In Point II, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in finding Counsel was not ineffective for failing to advise him of the viability of proceeding to trial to assert a duress defense. In Point III, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred in finding Counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate a potential witness ("Witness") who would corroborate Movant's account of events to support his defenses. In Point IV, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in finding Counsel did not affirmatively misadvise him he would receive earned compliance credit ("ECC") reducing his probationary term. In all points, Movant contends he would not have pled guilty and would have proceeded to trial in the absence of Counsel's alleged ineffectiveness.
All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2020), unless otherwise indicated.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not err. 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 this order under Rule 84.16(b).