Arnold v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnold v. State

187 S.W.3d 342, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 770451

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

DocketED 86581

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 S.W.3d 342 (Arnold 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

Arnold v. State, 187 S.W.3d 342, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 770451 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Arnold (hereinafter, “Arnold”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying and dismissing his Rule 74.06 and/or in the alternative Rule 29.07(d) motion seeking relief from a judgment and to correct a manifest injustice by setting aside his guilty plea from 1976. Arnold raises five claims of error on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the trial court’s decision was not in error. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only .setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Steven Arnold (hereinafter, “Arnold”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying and dismissing his Rule 74.06 and/or in the alternative Rule 29.07(d) motion seeking relief from a judgment and to correct a manifest injustice by setting aside his guilty plea from 1976. Arnold raises five claims of error on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the trial court’s decision was not in error. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only .setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.W.3d 342, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 364, 2006 WL 770451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack