Bearden v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bearden v. State

571 S.W.3d 703

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106910

StatusPublished

This text of 571 S.W.3d 703 (Bearden 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

Bearden v. State, 571 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Todd Bearden ("Bearden") appeals the motion court's denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 (2016) motion for postconviction relief. Bearden claims the motion court erred because the group plea procedure employed by the Circuit Court of St. Francois Court was unconstitutional and caused confusion with his plea bargain. Bearden also claims the motion court erred because his guilty plea should be vacated because the State did not have a factual basis for the type of methamphetamine he was trying to create and the classification of lithium as a precursor ingredient under § 195.420 RSMo (Supp. 2016). Bearden's final two claims involve *704ineffective assistance of plea counsel in failing to advise of the two defenses, above. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2) (2016).

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

PER CURIAM

Todd Bearden ("Bearden") appeals the motion court's denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 (2016) motion for postconviction relief. Bearden claims the motion court erred because the group plea procedure employed by the Circuit Court of St. Francois Court was unconstitutional and caused confusion with his plea bargain. Bearden also claims the motion court erred because his guilty plea should be vacated because the State did not have a factual basis for the type of methamphetamine he was trying to create and the classification of lithium as a precursor ingredient under § 195.420 RSMo (Supp. 2016). Bearden's final two claims involve *704ineffective assistance of plea counsel in failing to advise of the two defenses, above. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2) (2016).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 S.W.3d 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-state-moctapp-2019.