Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“issues about which defendant and his counsel knew and which could have been raised at trial and by direct appeal may not be raised by post-conviction motion.”
16 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shawn C. Haynes v. State of Missouri (moctapp, 2020-04-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Shawn C. Haynes v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
defendant's testimony he was satisfied with his attorney and she had done everything he had asked her to do prohibits later claim to the contrary.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Wilder v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
issues about which defendant and his counsel knew and which could have been raised at trial and by direct appeal may not be raised by post-conviction motion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Morrison v. Lewis
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · confidence medium
Estes v. State, 950 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997)(quoting Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matthew D. Martin v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Moreover, “a defendant who repeatedly assures the court that he is satisfied with his counsel's performance and that his counsel has done everything he requested, is later barred from obtaining post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jack v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721, 722 (Mo. banc 2002); State v. Johnson, 172 S.W.3d 900 , 901 n. 3 (Mo.App.2005); Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Mo.App.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chaney v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Additionally, a movant “ ‘who repeatedly assures the court that he is satisfied with his counsel’s performance and that his counsel had done everything that he requested, is later barred from obtaining post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” Estes v. State, 950 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Mo.App.1997) (quoting Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Johnson
Mo. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Mo.App.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fensom
Mo. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
State v. Skaggs, 248 S.W.2d 635, 636 (Mo.1952); Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Clouse
Mo. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
In reviewing a motion court’s decision to deny a Rule 29.15 motion, we are limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were “clearly erroneous.” Rule 29.15(j); Futrell v. State, 667 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo. banc 1984); Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.1993) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tate v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Rule 24.035(k); Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estes v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
“A defendant who repeatedly assures the court that he is satisfied with his counsel’s performance and that his counsel had done everything that he requested, is later barred from obtaining post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniels v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Chambers v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
We review in accord with Rule 24.035 and Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eberspacher v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374, 375 (Mo.App.1993).
Glenn HAMILTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
63500.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Oct 26, 1993.
865 S.W.2d 374
Susan K. Eckles, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crist, Crandall, Reinhard.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
CRIST, Judge.

On September 30, 1991, Defendant appeared on two different sets of charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to first degree assault, three counts of first degree robbery, two counts of armed criminal action under the first cause, and armed criminal action and second degree murder under the second cause. The trial court sentenced him as a Class X offender to concurrent terms of twenty-seven years’ imprisonment on each count of each cause. On November 15, 1991, Defendant filed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas and attached a sworn affidavit in which his brother stated he had committed all the crimes with which Defendant was charged. The trial court conducted a hearing on this motion during which Defendant testified he saw his brother write out the affidavit and sign it. Defendant’s brother was also called to testify, but he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. After hearing all the evidence, the trial court denied this motion.

On January 1, 1992, Defendant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. Counsel was appointed and Defendant filed an amended motion and a request for an evidentiary hearing. On February 11, 1993, the motion court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Defendant’s Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant now appeals, alleging the motion court erred in denying his ineffective assistance of counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, review of the dismissal of a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Jones v. State, 820 S.W.2d 729, 730[1] (Mo.App.1991). After the defendant has entered a guilty plea, the effectiveness of his counsel is relevant only to the extent it affects the voluntariness of his plea. Watt v. State, 835 S.W.2d 404, 406[2] (Mo.App.1992). If the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted by the record, defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction motion. Id. Further, a defendant who repeatedly assures the court that he is satisfied with his counsel’s performance and that his counsel has done everything he requested, is later barred from obtaining post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Cramlett v. State, 800 S.W.2d 813, 813-14 (Mo.App.1990).

Defendant’s own testimony refutes his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. At trial, the following exchange took place:

COURT: Satisfied with Miss Randall’s recommendation of you on these cases?
DEFENDANT: Yes, I am.
COURT: Had enough time to discuss these cases with her before you decided to plead guilty?
DEFENDANT: Yes, I have.
COURT: Has she done everything on these cases you wanted her to do before you decided to plead guilty?
DEFENDANT: Yes, she has.
COURT: Can you think of anything, Mr. Hamilton, that Miss Randall hasn’t done that you wanted her to do on either one of[*376] these cases before you decided to plead guilty? .
DEFENDANT: No, I cannot.

Based on the above, the court properly found Defendant entered his plea voluntarily. Since Defendant’s claim is refuted by the record, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Further, Defendant’s testimony he was satisfied with his attorney and she had done everything he had asked her to do prohibits his later claim to the contrary. Jones, 820 S.W.2d at 731.

Defendant’s point also alleges the motion court clearly erred in upholding the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The order denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is an appealable order. Belcher v. State, 801 S.W.2d 372, 374[1] (Mo.App.1991). No appeal was taken from this order; therefore this issue may not be raised in a Rule 24.035 motion. Id. Point denied.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.