Bridges v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bridges v. State

260 S.W.3d 436, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1096, 2008 WL 3843572

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 19, 2008·No. ED 90380·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Armand Bridges (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because plea counsel misinformed him about the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Armand Bridges (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because plea counsel misinformed him about the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bridges v. State, 260 S.W.3d 436, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1096, 2008 WL 3843572 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

260 S.W.3d 436 (Bridges v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related