Boyer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Boyer v. State

91 S.W.3d 147, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2319, 2002 WL 31655174

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 26, 2002·No. ED 80843·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Chase Boyer, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion. He contends: (1) he entered his guilty pleas unknowingly in that his counsel failed to inform him about parole eligibility; and (2) the plea court violated Rule 24.02(b) by failing to inform him about the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by law.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion 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.

Movant, Chase Boyer, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion. He contends: (1) he entered his guilty pleas unknowingly in that his counsel failed to inform him about parole eligibility; and (2) the plea court violated Rule 24.02(b) by failing to inform him about the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by law.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Boyer v. State, 91 S.W.3d 147, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2319, 2002 WL 31655174 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

91 S.W.3d 147 (Boyer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.