Birmingham v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Birmingham v. State

559 S.W.3d 116

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2018

DocketWD 81129

StatusPublished

This text of 559 S.W.3d 116 (Birmingham 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

Birmingham v. State, 559 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Michael Birmingham appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing after pleading guilty to two counts of money laundering and one count of failure to file a tax return. He contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying the post-conviction motion because the factual basis for his pleas to both offenses was insufficient and plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that his alleged acts did not constitute the crime of money laundering. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Michael Birmingham appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing after pleading guilty to two counts of money laundering and one count of failure to file a tax return. He contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying the post-conviction motion because the factual basis for his pleas to both offenses was insufficient and plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that his alleged acts did not constitute the crime of money laundering. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 S.W.3d 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birmingham-v-state-moctapp-2018.