Legal Opinion

Fujimoto v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 4, 2013No. ED 98551PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge.

Introduction

Appellant James Fujimoto (“Fujimoto”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Fujimoto first argues that he was denied his right to fair and impartial sentencing and due process because the plea court allowed prejudicial testimony, over his objection, at the sentencing hearing. Fujimoto contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because he would not have entered the plea had he known the plea court would allow such testimony at the sentencing hearing.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
  2. State v. MaloneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985
  3. State v. BellamySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  4. State v. WinfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1999
  5. State v. ShaferSupreme Court of Missouri · 1998

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  2. Daniel Fields v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2022
  3. State of Missouri v. Richard D. EmerySupreme Court of Missouri · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API