Adams v. State
233 S.W.3d 233, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 2007 WL 2702189
Opinion
ORDER
Movant, Alphonso Adams, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On *234 appeal, movant argues that his counsel coerced him into entering his guilty pleas.
The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Adams v. State, 233 S.W.3d 233, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 2007 WL 2702189 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
233 S.W.3d 233 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Chapman
233 S.W.3d 233 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)