Borneman v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtMary W. Sheffield, J.
David Andrew Borneman ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.1 Movant's two points claim the motion court clearly erred by denying: (1) Movant's claim that plea counsel was constitutionally ineffective for erroneously advising Movant "that if he entered an 'open plea' of guilty, he would be sentenced to probation for his charge of felony stealing"; and (2) an oral motion from post-conviction counsel to supplement the amended Rule 24.035 motion with an additional claim that Movant's sentence for…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Dorris v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Travis M. Stanley v. State of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 2014
- State of Missouri v. Amanda N. BazellSupreme Court of Missouri · 2016
- Hoskins v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jermaine D. Williams v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024
- RANDALL OWENS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-RespondentMissouri Court of Appeals · 2023
- TERRENCE TYRELL TINSLEY, JR. v. STATE OF MISSOURIMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024