Blakemore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blakemore v. State

288 S.W.3d 331, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1078, 2009 WL 2151363

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 21, 2009

DocketED 91709

StatusPublished

This text of 288 S.W.3d 331 (Blakemore 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

Blakemore v. State, 288 S.W.3d 331, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1078, 2009 WL 2151363 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Randy Blakemore (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to two counts of criminal nonsupport in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 568.040. Movant contends that the motion erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) his plea counsel failed to adequately investigate a potential “good cause” defense to his charge of criminal nonsupport; and (2) the State failed to present a sufficient factual basis at the plea hearing that he was “without good cause” in failing to provide adequate support. In response, the State defends the motion court’s findings and additionally requests this court to dismiss Movant’s appeal under the “escape rule”.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and, while declining to dismiss Movant’s appeal under the “escape rule”, we find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Mov-ant post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Randy Blakemore (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea to two counts of criminal nonsupport in violation of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 568.040. Movant contends that the motion erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because: (1) his plea counsel failed to adequately investigate a potential “good cause” defense to his charge of criminal nonsupport; and (2) the State failed to present a sufficient factual basis at the plea hearing that he was “without good cause” in failing to provide adequate support. In response, the State defends the motion court’s findings and additionally requests this court to dismiss Movant’s appeal under the “escape rule”.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and, while declining to dismiss Movant’s appeal under the “escape rule”, we find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Mov-ant post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.W.3d 331, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1078, 2009 WL 2151363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blakemore-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack