Binkley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Binkley v. State

491 S.W.2d 28

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 1973

DocketNo. 9307

StatusPublished

This text of 491 S.W.2d 28 (Binkley 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

Binkley v. State, 491 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, denying appellant’s motion to vacate his ten-year sentence for manslaughter under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.

The trial court ruled adversely to appellant’s contentions that his guilty plea was [29]*29induced by a promise of probation from the sheriff, and, ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed and carefully examined the transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the trial court, including a transcript of the record of the appellant’s guilty plea, and conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; that no error of law appears; that an opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.-16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Butler County, Missouri, denying appellant’s motion to vacate his ten-year sentence for manslaughter under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.

The trial court ruled adversely to appellant’s contentions that his guilty plea was [29]*29induced by a promise of probation from the sheriff, and, ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed and carefully examined the transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the trial court, including a transcript of the record of the appellant’s guilty plea, and conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; that no error of law appears; that an opinion would have no precedential value.

We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.-16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 S.W.2d 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binkley-v-state-moctapp-1973.