Briggs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Briggs v. State

207 S.W.3d 725, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1887, 2006 WL 3615187

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 12, 2006·No. No. WD 66209·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

The current appeal involves a single issue: did the motion court clearly err by denying appellant Leroy Briggs’s motion for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 24.035. Briggs claims his guilty plea entered after mistrial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he feared returning to trial with an unprepared attorney and spending additional time at the county jail. Therefore, he claims, his guilty plea is subject to vacation under Rule 24.035.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

The current appeal involves a single issue: did the motion court clearly err by denying appellant Leroy Briggs’s motion for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 24.035. Briggs claims his guilty plea entered after mistrial was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because he feared returning to trial with an unprepared attorney and spending additional time at the county jail. Therefore, he claims, his guilty plea is subject to vacation under Rule 24.035.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Briggs v. State, 207 S.W.3d 725, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1887, 2006 WL 3615187 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

207 S.W.3d 725 (Briggs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.