Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. State

515 S.W.3d 837, 2017 WL 1323902, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 285

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104333

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 837 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 515 S.W.3d 837, 2017 WL 1323902, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Lashaun D. Anderson (“Anderson”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his amended Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of felony stealing and to one count of felony property damage. Anderson argues on appeal that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that the factual recitation made by the prosecutor at the plea hearing did not support Anderson’s conviction for stealing and that the State would not be able to prove said offense at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Lashaun D. Anderson (“Anderson”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his amended Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of felony stealing and to one count of felony property damage. Anderson argues on appeal that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that the factual recitation made by the prosecutor at the plea hearing did not support Anderson’s conviction for stealing and that the State would not be able to prove said offense at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.3d 837, 2017 WL 1323902, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-moctapp-2017.