Peterson v. State

Tom Glaze, Justice.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 37 petition, and contends the court violated A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24.4(c) by not informing him that the possible sentences in Case No. 84-3378, which included guilty pleas to burglary and theft, could be ordered consecutively. He further argues that his counsel was ineffective because his counsel misrepresented the length of sentence that appellant might expect. We find appellant’s claims unmeritorious, and therefore affirm.

In June 1985, the appellant, as required by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24.4, was fully advised of the consequences…