denial of an evidentiary hearing in Missouri

2022However, “[t]o justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing . . ., the record must be specific enough to conclusively refute the movant’s allegation.” Id. (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promises other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible statements by counsel to his [or her] client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)).

2015For the denial of an evidentiary hearing to be justified, the record must be “ ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Lomax v. State, 163 S.W.3d 561, 563 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)).

2022However, “[t]o justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing . . ., the record must be specific enough to conclusively refute the movant’s allegation.” Id. (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promises other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible statements by counsel to his [or her] client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)).

2015For the denial of an evidentiary hearing to be justified, the record must be “ ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Lomax v. State, 163 S.W.3d 561, 563 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)).

1979The standard for determining whether a Rule 27.26 movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing is that stated in Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied 420 U.S. 911 , 95 S.Ct. 832 , 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975): “A 27.26 movant, in order to be entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing, must plead facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle him to relief and must show that such factual allegations are not refuted by facts elicited at the guilty plea hearing. 2 (Emphasis in original.) This standard has been applied consistently by Missouri appellate courts to support the

1977Our Supreme Court en banc has stated the rule of review for the denial of an evidentiary hearing as follows: “. . .A 27.26 movant, in order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, must plead facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle him to relief and must show that such factual allegations are not refuted by facts elicited at the guilty plea hearing.” Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 911 , 1 95 S.Ct. 832 , 42 L.Ed.2d 841 .

2022However, “[t]o justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing . . ., the record must be specific enough to conclusively refute the movant’s allegation.” Id. (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promises other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible statements by counsel to his [or her] client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)).

2021“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation[s].” Whitehead v. State, 481 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promise other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible 6 statements by counsel to his client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 12

2022However, “[t]o justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing . . ., the record must be specific enough to conclusively refute the movant’s allegation.” Id. (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promises other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible statements by counsel to his [or her] client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)).

2021“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation[s].” Whitehead v. State, 481 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promise other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible 6 statements by counsel to his client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 12

2021“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation[s].” Whitehead v. State, 481 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promise other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible 6 statements by counsel to his client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 12

2016See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 821-24 (Mo.App.E.D.2014).

2021“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation[s].” Whitehead v. State, 481 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promise other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible 6 statements by counsel to his client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 12

2014“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Nichols, 409 S.W.3d at 569 (citation omitted). “[A] motion court properly denies an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief where the movant repeatedly assured the plea court that he *823 was satisfied with counsel’s representation and that counsel did everything he requested and the movant was given ample opportunity to express his duress to the court.” Id. at 570 (citation and quotations omitt

2014“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Nichols, 409 S.W.3d at 569 (citation omitted). “[A] motion court properly denies an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief where the movant repeatedly assured the plea court that he *823 was satisfied with counsel’s representation and that counsel did everything he requested and the movant was given ample opportunity to express his duress to the court.” Id. at 570 (citation and quotations omitt

2013“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Conger v. State, 356 S.W.3d 217, 222 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (quoting Lomax v. State, 163 S.W.3d 561, 563 (Mo.App.E.D.2005)).

2013“A negative re sponse to a routine inquiry regarding whether any promises or threats had been made to induce a guilty plea is too general to encompass all possible statements by counsel to his client.” Conger, 356 S.W.3d at 222 .

2011State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 1992).

1997NOTES [1] Rule 55.03(b) provides in part: "By presenting or maintaining a claim ... in a pleading, ... an attorney or party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that: .... (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support...." Rule 4, Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 provides in part: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous...." [1] Rule 29.15(g) (1988).

1997NOTES [1] Rule 55.03(b) provides in part: "By presenting or maintaining a claim ... in a pleading, ... an attorney or party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that: .... (3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support...." Rule 4, Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 provides in part: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous...." [1] Rule 29.15(g) (1988).

1993Speakman v. State, 602 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Mo.App.1980).

1988Deaton v. State, 705 S.W.2d 70, 76 (Mo.App., E.D.1985).

1978See Mainord v. State, 541 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App.1976) and Beaver v. State, 552 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1977) wherein this court distinguished Burgin, supra, and affirmed the denial of an evidentiary hearing even though the trial court failed to advise defendants that recommendations were not binding on the court.

1978See Mainord v. State, 541 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App.1976) and Beaver v. State, 552 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1977) wherein this court distinguished Burgin, supra, and affirmed the denial of an evidentiary hearing even though the trial court failed to advise defendants that recommendations were not binding on the court.

1978See Mainord v. State, 541 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App.1976) and Beaver v. State, 552 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1977) wherein this court distinguished Burgin, supra, and affirmed the denial of an evidentiary hearing even though the trial court failed to advise defendants that recommendations were not binding on the court.

1972Crosswhite v. State, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 11, 12 [2-4], Finally, by Point II (and as an incident of his other points) appellant complains of the denial of an evidentiary hearing and failure to make formal findings of fact and conclusions of law.