APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PEMISCOT COUNTY. Honorable Byron D. Luber, Judge
Parrish, Shrum, Montgomery
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Parrish
This is an appeal from the denial, without evidentiary hearing, of a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. This court affirms.
Harry W. Jackson (movant) was charged in his underlying criminal case with the sale of cocaine, a controlled substance. § 195.211.2, RSMo Supp. 1989. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement to confinement in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of ten years. Execution of sentence was suspended and movant was granted probation. That probation was later revoked. Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. Counsel was appointed to represent him and an amended Rule 24.035 motion filed.
The motion court's findings of fact and Conclusions of law included:
1. The record totally contradicts Movant's claims.
2. The Movant's plea of guilty was made voluntarily and intelligently, with a full understanding of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and with a full understanding of his rights under the Constitution and the effect of a plea of guilty on those rights.
4. That the record indicates that Movant was aware and had knowledge of the informant's death at the time of his plea.
5. That movant at the 29.07 hearing was totally satisfied with the assistance of his counsel.
6. That based on the total record the Court finds that Movant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
7. That Movant received effective assistance of counsel and accepted a reasonable plea bargain.
In Edmonds v. State, 819 S.W.2d 90 (Mo.App. 1991), this court explained the applicable scope of review in a Rule 24.035 appeal.
This court's review is limited to making a determination of whether the motion court's findings and Conclusions are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). . . . Further, since movant pleaded guilty to the underlying criminal charge, "any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinged upon the voluntariness and knowledge ...