Booker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Booker v. State

190 S.W.3d 516, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 533, 2006 WL 1071985

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 2006

DocketED 86514

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 516 (Booker 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

Booker v. State, 190 S.W.3d 516, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 533, 2006 WL 1071985 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Booker (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his amended motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the court erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was no adequate factual basis to support the three charges against him. Movant also claims the motion court erred in denying his amended motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to the charges against him.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose *517 would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Booker (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his amended motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the court erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was no adequate factual basis to support the three charges against him. Movant also claims the motion court erred in denying his amended motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead guilty to the charges against him.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose *517 would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 516, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 533, 2006 WL 1071985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booker-v-state-moctapp-2006.