Mov-ant claim in Missouri

2012Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo. App. S.D.2005).

2007“If either the performance or the prejudice prong of the test is not met, then we need not consider the other, and Mov-ant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must fail.” Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.2005).

2017See Austin, 484 S.W.3d at 833 .

2015See Henderson v. State, 786 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Mo.App.E.D.1990) Even if the issue was cognizable in this proceeding, the record refutes Mov-ant’s claim that both counts of second-degree domestic assault (Counts XII and XIII) constitute the same offense.

2011The motion court specifically found Mov-ant’s motion hearing testimony “not credible.” The motion court found that plea counsel had researched the question of the admissibility of Son’s statements to Trooper Brannon and determined that they “probably would not be admissible.” The motion court also found that Son’s admissions were inseparable from the polygraph test itself and would not have been admissible at trial, citing State v. Hall, 955 *664 S.W.2d 198, 207 (Mo. banc 1997), and that plea counsel had exercised reasonable professional judgment in determining that Son’s admissions could not

2011See Shifkowski, 136 S.W.3d at 590 .

2011See Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 60 (Mo. banc 2009) (Fischer, J., concurring) (“To be clear, abandonment is established only where postconviction counsel fails to comply with the duties explicitly imposed by Rule 24.035 or Rule 29.15.”).

2010After a negotiated guilty plea, a movant’s “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the voluntariness and knowledge with which the guilty plea was made.” Roberts, 276 S.W.3d at 836 ; Hicks v. State, 918 S.W.2d 385, 386 (Mo.App.

2008Clevenger’s claim that she was present at Movant’s home during the commission of the crime and saw Movant standing over Victim with a gun and covered in blood was thus in direct contra *926 diction to Movant’s own narrative of events to his counsels and his theory of defense. “ ‘If a potential witness’s testimony would not unqualifiedly support a defendant, the failure to call such a witness does not constitute ineffective assistance.’ ” Wor-thington, 166 S.W.3d at 577 (quoting State v. Jones, 885 S.W.2d 57, 58 (Mo.App.1994)).

2007Where, as here, there is a negotiated plea of guilty, a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the volun-tarine'sst and knowledge with which the guilty plea was made.” Cupp, 935 S.W.2d at 368 . ‘An Alford plea is not treated differently- than a guilty plea where the accused admits the commission of the crime charged.” Id. “ ‘As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Sexton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 782, 7

2006We look next at five pages in Mov-ant’s brief that have been denominated points “2, 3 and 4.” “Points relied on are critical and must be stated as specified in Rule 84.04(d).” Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo.banc 2005).

2005Moreover, “we are not permitted to supplement the record by implication from the motion court’s ruling.” Clayton v. State, 164 S.W.3d 111, 115 [3] (Mo.App.2005).

2003Mov-ant’s claim of error is based on the requirement of Rule 24.02(e) that “[t]he court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it determines that there is a factual basis for the plea.” Franklin v. State, 989 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Mo.App.1999), explains: “A factual basis [for a plea of guilty] is established if the defendant understands the facts recited by the judge.... ” State v. Morton, 971 S.W.2d 335, 340 (Mo.App.

2003Mov-ant’s claim of error is based on the requirement of Rule 24.02(e) that “[t]he court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it determines that there is a factual basis for the plea.” Franklin v. State, 989 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Mo.App.1999), explains: “A factual basis [for a plea of guilty] is established if the defendant understands the facts recited by the judge.... ” State v. Morton, 971 S.W.2d 335, 340 (Mo.App.

2002Movant does not specifically appeal this ruling by the motion court. “ ‘Appellate review of a denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous.’ ” Elmore v. State, 55 S.W.3d 424, 425 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting Henderson v. State, 32 S.W.3d 769, 770 (Mo.App.2000)).

2002White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 893 (Mo. banc 1997).

2002Movant does not specifically appeal this ruling by the motion court. “ ‘Appellate review of a denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous.’ ” Elmore v. State, 55 S.W.3d 424, 425 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting Henderson v. State, 32 S.W.3d 769, 770 (Mo.App.2000)).

2001In Driskill v. State, 947 S.W.2d 551, 552-53 (Mo.App.