Wilson v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
PREWITT, Judge.
The state appeals from the trial court’s ruling in movant’s favor on her motion filed *267pursuant to Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. Our review is limited to determining if “the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous.” Rule 27.26(j), V.A.M.R.
Movant was charged with selling marijuana to an undercover narcotics agent. She pled guilty against the advice of her appointed counsel. He informed the judge who accepted the plea that she had a defense due to entrapment. There was evidence that her confidence in the attorney had been undercut by others, including…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rice v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
- Kansas City v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
- State v. DevineMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Goff v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
- State v. RitterbachMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. ArnoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Funkhouser v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
- Peterson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.