Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. State

130 S.W.3d 726, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 447, 2004 WL 612846

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Anderson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 256 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 30, 2004·No. No. ED 83137·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emanuel Anderson appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He contends he pleaded guilty involuntarily because his plea counsel mistakenly led him to believe the trial court would grant him probation.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emanuel Anderson appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. He contends he pleaded guilty involuntarily because his plea counsel mistakenly led him to believe the trial court would grant him probation.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Anderson v. State, 130 S.W.3d 726, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 447, 2004 WL 612846 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

130 S.W.3d 726 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.