Baker v. State
James L. BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Attorneys
Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, MO, for appellant., Shaun J. Mackelprang and Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
ORDER
James Baker appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Baker contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion because: (1) trial counsel incorrectly advised Baker that if he entered a guilty *818 plea to charges of sexual assault and witness tampering he would be eligible for parole after serving a portion of his sentences when, in fact, a conviction for witness tampering renders a defendant parole ineligible, and (2) no adequate factual basis to support his guilty plea to sexual abuse was established. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).