Ashford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ashford v. State

487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578895, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 366

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103061

StatusPublished

This text of 487 S.W.3d 493 (Ashford 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

Ashford v. State, 487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578895, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 366 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Ashford (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without a hearing because the trial court lacked a factual basis to accept Movant’s guilty plea.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Joseph Ashford (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion without a hearing because the trial court lacked a factual basis to accept Movant’s guilty plea.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578895, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashford-v-state-moctapp-2016.