Bader v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bader v. State

249 S.W.3d 277, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 483, 2008 WL 926629

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 2008

DocketED 89402

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 S.W.3d 277 (Bader 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

Bader v. State, 249 S.W.3d 277, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 483, 2008 WL 926629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cletus Bader (“Movant”) appeals from 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 asserts he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily and knowingly as a result of the ineffective assistance of his counsel. Movant claims the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Cletus Bader (“Movant”) appeals from 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 asserts he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily and knowingly as a result of the ineffective assistance of his counsel. Movant claims the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.3d 277, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 483, 2008 WL 926629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bader-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack