Bardo v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bardo v. State

364 S.W.3d 269, 2012 WL 1338751, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 514

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2012

DocketED 97146

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 S.W.3d 269 (Bardo 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

Bardo v. State, 364 S.W.3d 269, 2012 WL 1338751, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Bardo (Bardo) appeals from the motion court’s denial without an evidentia-ry hearing of his motion for post-conviction relief under Mo. R.Crim. P. 24.035, 2008. Bardo pleaded guilty to three counts of abuse of a child, and was sentenced to three seven-year sentences. The trial court ordered that the first two sentences run consecutively. The third sentence was ordered to run concurrent to the first two sentences. Bardo argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective for incorrectly informing him that each of the three sentences imposed would run concurrently, for a total sentence of seven years.

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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b)(2), 2011.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Bardo (Bardo) appeals from the motion court’s denial without an evidentia-ry hearing of his motion for post-conviction relief under Mo. R.Crim. P. 24.035, 2008. Bardo pleaded guilty to three counts of abuse of a child, and was sentenced to three seven-year sentences. The trial court ordered that the first two sentences run consecutively. The third sentence was ordered to run concurrent to the first two sentences. Bardo argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective for incorrectly informing him that each of the three sentences imposed would run concurrently, for a total sentence of seven years.

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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b)(2), 2011.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 269, 2012 WL 1338751, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bardo-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack