Michael Birmingham appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing after pleading guilty to two counts of money laundering and one count of failure to file a tax return. He contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying the post-conviction motion because the factual basis for his pleas to both offenses was insufficient and plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that his alleged acts did not constitute the crime of money laundering. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Birmingham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 116 (2018)
Oct. 23, 2018
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
·
WD 81129
559 S.W.3d 116
Michael D. BIRMINGHAM, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
WD 81129
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Order filed: October 23, 2018
Annette M. Wallace, for Appellant
Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City, for Respondent
Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and George E. Wolf, III, Special Judge
ORDER