Where a defendant challenged the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, the trial court did not err in concluding that the pro se and amended motions for post-conviction relief were timely filed, and the court did not err in rejecting his claim that his guilty plea was coerced by counsel’s statements concerning the possibility of the death penalty since the court rejected the defendant’s credibility and counsel merely offered his candid assessment of the likely outcome of going to trial.
Judgment is affirmed.
James v. State (MLW No. 80740/Case No. WD85347 – 15 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Ahuja, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Roldan, J. (Annette Wallace, Kansas City, for appellant) (Evan Buchheim, Jefferson City, for respondent).