With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". indicated that he was pressured into pleading guilty. Movant stated to the plea court that he had spoken with his counsel enough to know whether he wanted to plead guilty, his decision to plead guilty was of his own free will, and nobody threatened him to do so. After he was sentenced, Movant was again given the opportunity to indicate whether his pleas of guilty were coerced. Instead, he specifically stated that his pleas were not a result of threats or promises. He further stated that his lawyer answered all his questions, he was afforded enough time to discuss his charges with his lawyer, and aside from a delay in paperwork granting him access to the prison law library, his lawyer “fulfilled everything else” asked of him. See Nesbitt v. State, 335 S.W.3d 67, 69 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (<HOLDING>). Because the record here clearly refutes

A: holding no coercion where counsel told movant his conviction was likely because movant stated he understood full range of punishment and no one threatened him to plead guilty
B: holding that appellant was entitled to evidentiary hearing based on allegation his trial counsel told him he would most likely face a life sentence if he went to trial when the maximum sentence for the charge he plead guilty to was eleven years
C: holding that where interest was supposed to have run from the date of judgment but movant never asked for it and had accepted full payment of the judgment without it movant had forever waived his right to receive it
D: holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea
A.