WERMELSKIRCHEN v. STATE (2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Bradford W. WERMELSKIRCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 87184

Decided: July 01, 2025

Before Division Three: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge, and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

JoEllen Grohs, Kansas City, MO, counsel for Appellant. Alex Beezley, Jefferson City, MO, counsel for Respondent.

ORDER

Bradford Wermelskirchen appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Andrew County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that he would not be required to serve a minimum of 85 percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole and his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because of his mistaken belief based on the erroneous advice. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum explaining the reason for this decision is provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law