Bingaman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bingaman v. State

285 S.W.3d 831, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 882, 2009 WL 1759699

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketED 92009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 285 S.W.3d 831 (Bingaman 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

Bingaman v. State, 285 S.W.3d 831, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 882, 2009 WL 1759699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brittany Bingaman (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred when it denied her motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because her plea counsel was ineffective for affirmatively advising her that she would receive either probation or 120 days pursuant to Section 559.115 RSMo Cum.Supp.2006 1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo Cum.Supp.2006 unless otherwise indicated.

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