Barker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barker v. State

369 S.W.3d 807, 2012 WL 2732579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 889

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 10, 2012·No. No. WD 73848·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Eric R. Barker appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Barker sought to set aside his guilty plea to one count each of keeping or maintaining a public nuisance (section 195.130 RSMo) and possession of a controlled substance (section 195.202 RSMo). Barker now asserts that he was denied due process of law because the trial court accepted his guilty plea without a factual basis having been demonstrated for maintaining a public nuisance. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Eric R. Barker appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Barker sought to set aside his guilty plea to one count each of keeping or maintaining a public nuisance (section 195.130 RSMo) and possession of a controlled substance (section 195.202 RSMo). Barker now asserts that he was denied due process of law because the trial court accepted his guilty plea without a factual basis having been demonstrated for maintaining a public nuisance. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Barker v. State, 369 S.W.3d 807, 2012 WL 2732579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

369 S.W.3d 807 (Barker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.