Banner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Banner v. State

364 S.W.3d 266, 2012 WL 1337615, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 515

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2012

DocketED 96018

StatusPublished

This text of 364 S.W.3d 266 (Banner 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

Banner v. State, 364 S.W.3d 266, 2012 WL 1337615, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 515 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alexander Banner (“Banner”) appeals the judgment of the St. Louis City Circuit Court overruling his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. 1 Banner pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. On Appeal, Banner argues that the trial court erred, and plea counsel was ineffective, in failing to advise Banner that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences for first degree robbery before becoming eligible for parole.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 24.16(b)(2).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011 unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alexander Banner (“Banner”) appeals the judgment of the St. Louis City Circuit Court overruling his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. 1 Banner pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. On Appeal, Banner argues that the trial court erred, and plea counsel was ineffective, in failing to advise Banner that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences for first degree robbery before becoming eligible for parole.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 24.16(b)(2).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011 unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 266, 2012 WL 1337615, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banner-v-state-moctapp-2012.