"Neither a disappointed expectation of a lesser sentence, nor a mere prediction as to sentencing by counsel that proves incorrect, is sufficient to render a guilty plea involuntary." Porter v. State , 480 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (internal quotation omitted). See also White v. State , 954 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) ("An attorney's mere prediction of a sentence or of punishment the court will impose does not necessarily constitute coercion which renders a guilty plea involuntary."); Simons v. State , 719 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986) ("For counsel to predict the possibility of a lengthy sentence following a jury trial does not amount to a coerced and involuntary plea.").
" ‘Neither a disappointed expectation of a lesser sentence, nor a mere prediction as to sentencing by counsel that proves incorrect, is sufficient to render a guilty plea involuntary.’ " Robertson v. State , 502 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Mo. App. 2016) (quoting Porter v. State , 480 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Mo. App. 2016) ). Eccher's appellate counsel acknowledges the record but argues it's difficult to know whether Eccher, who has mild autism, truly understood he could receive a sentence greater than 25 years.
" Id. "We presume that the motion court's findings and conclusions are correct, and defer to the motion court's determinations of credibility." Simmons v. State , 502 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Porter v. State , 480 S.W.3d 455, 457 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) ).Analysis
" Id. "We presume that the motion court's findings and conclusions are correct, and defer to the motion court's determinations of credibility." Simmons v. State, 502 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Porter v. State, 480 S.W.3d 455, 457 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016)). "Even if the stated reason for a [motion] court's ruling is incorrect, the judgment should be affirmed if the judgment is sustainable on other grounds." Swallow v. State, 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013).
" Id. (citing Soto v. State , 226 S.W.3d 164, 166 (Mo. banc 2007) ). "'We presume that the motion court's findings and conclusions are correct, and defer to the motion court's determinations of credibility."' Porter v. State , 480 S.W.3d 455, 457 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting Nichols v. State , 409 S.W.3d 566, 569 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ).Analysis