Apel v. State

241 S.W.3d 874, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 19, 2008 WL 68619
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 8, 2008·No. WD 67649·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied William Lee Apel’s motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 (2007). Apel was convicted for two counts of first-degree trafficking and one count of possession of a precursor chemical with intent to create a controlled substance. In his Rule 29.15 motion, he claimed that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in fading to relay a plea deal offered by the State. After receiving testimony from Apel and his trial counsel, the motion court determined that trial counsel did transmit the offer to Apel and denied relief under Rule 29.15. The current appeal presents no grounds for reversing that judgment. We, therefore, affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Apel v. State, 241 S.W.3d 874, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 19, 2008 WL 68619 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

241 S.W.3d 874 (Apel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. State
241 S.W.3d 874 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)