Brown v. State

208 S.W.3d 921, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1933, 2006 WL 3718259
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1831
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 2006·No. ED 87088·Published

Opinion

*922 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Brown (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because Movant established that the plea court failed to inform him of the maximum range of punishment for armed criminal action as required by Rule 24.02. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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 award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Brown v. State, 208 S.W.3d 921, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1933, 2006 WL 3718259 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

208 S.W.3d 921 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Lawyer
208 S.W.3d 921 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)