Johnson v. State

Julian Johnson (Johnson) appeals from an order denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.1 Johnson contends the motion court clearly erred in denying relief because his plea counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him that he would have to serve 85% of the sentence he received for first-degree assault before becoming eligible for parole. Because the motion court did not clearly err in its ruling, we affirm.

In 2009, Johnson was charged by information with committing the following crimes: one count of the class A felony of assault in…