Legal Opinion

Wescott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 1987No. WD 38363PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NUGENT, Judge.

Movant James William Wescott (hereinafter “defendant”) claims that the hearing court clearly erred in denying his Rule 27.26 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence for forcible rape, § 566.030. 1 He argues that his guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and willingly made, but instead was entered involuntarily due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In his second point, defendant argues that his conviction is a nullity because the trial court had no jurisdiction to accept this guilty plea as the information was not sufficient to charge the class A felony of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
  2. Rice v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
  3. Hogshooter v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. State v. StringerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948
  5. State v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1971

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Malone v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
  2. State v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  3. Fults v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Olds v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API