Barr v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barr v. State

228 S.W.3d 38, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 879, 2007 WL 1673560

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2007·No. ED 87297·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Billy J. Barr, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that a court ordered program would cost $225.00.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. 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.

Movant, Billy J. Barr, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that a court ordered program would cost $225.00.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Barr v. State, 228 S.W.3d 38, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 879, 2007 WL 1673560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

228 S.W.3d 38 (Barr v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related