Bridgewater v. State
Adam D. BRIDGEWATER v. STATE of Missouri
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ORDER PER CURIAM:
Adam Bridgewater appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. Bridgewater argues that the motion court erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to explain that by entering an open plea, Bridgewater faced the full range of punishment, including consecutive life sentences. Bridgewater claims that if his trial counsel would have informed him of the possibility of consecutive life sentences, he would not have pleaded guilty. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.