Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable John D.
S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge.
Wilson ("Wilson") appeals the motion court's
denial of his motion to vacate, set aside or correct his
sentence pursuant to Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary
hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Wilson contends that
the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035
motion without an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel
inaccurately advised him that he would receive credit for
prison time he served in Illinois during the pendency of his
case. Because the record conclusively refutes Wilson's
allegation of prejudice, we affirm.
and Procedural History
January 9, 2014, Wilson pleaded guilty to the charge of theft
in Illinois. The Illinois sentencing court sentenced Wilson
to three years in prison. While Wilson was serving time in
Illinois for the Illinois theft charge, the State of Missouri
charged Wilson with first-degree robbery for an incident
occurring during June 2013. On August 25, 2016, Wilson
pleaded guilty to the charged offense not pursuant to any
recommendation from the State.
plea hearing, the State outlined its evidence against Wilson:
Wilson, acting with another, forcibly stole $41, 435.00 in
merchandise at gunpoint from an AT&T store and fled the
scene in a gray SUV. Law enforcement later found the gray
SUV, which contained DNA and fingerprint evidence linking
Wilson to the vehicle, Wilson confirmed the truth of these
allegations and admitted to participating in the robbery. The
State outlined the range of punishment as ten years to thirty
years or life in prison. Wilson confirmed that he understood
the range of punishment.
further assured the court that he also understood the nature
of his blind guilty plea. Wilson stated that he had
sufficient time to speak with plea counsel, plea counsel
advised him of the consequences of his blind guilty plea, and
plea counsel adequately investigated his case. Wilson had no
general complaints or criticisms of plea counsel's
services. Additionally, Wilson said that no one made him any
promises about the outcome of the plea and that no one told
him how long he would be confined or have to serve as a
COURT: Has anybody made any promises to you about the outcome
of your plea of guilty, other than I will make the decision
as to what your sentence will be?
WILSON: No, sir.
COURT: Has your attorney or anyone else told you how long you
will be confined or have to serve in the penitentiary, if the
Court accepts your plea of guilty and imposes a sentence of
WILSON: No, sir.
plea court subsequently accepted Wilson's guilty plea and
scheduled the sentencing hearing.
sentencing hearing, the sentencing court acknowledged
reviewing letters written by Wilson's family members.
Upon sentencing Wilson to twenty years in prison, the
sentencing court affirmatively stated that Wilson would
receive "credit for time served on [his] Illinois case .
.. and [his] time will be run concurrent with any sentence
[he has] in Illinois." The written sentence entered by
the sentencing court stated that Wilson's sentence was
twenty years, "to be served concurrent with credit for
time served" with 13CF1626 (the Illinois conviction).
Subsequently, the sentencing court inquired about
Wilson's satisfaction with plea counsel:
COURT: One final series of questions: Did [plea counsel],
your attorney, did he do the things you wanted him to do as
far as looking into your case, preparing it, and putting it
in the best ...