Buckley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Buckley v. State

462 S.W.3d 809, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2015 WL 1813025

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101146

StatusPublished

This text of 462 S.W.3d 809 (Buckley 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

Buckley v. State, 462 S.W.3d 809, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2015 WL 1813025 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Corey Buckley (“Buckley”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, Buckley claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Buckley claims that plea counsel affirmatively misrepresented that Buckley would be eligible for parole after serving 25% of his eighteen year sentence when an actual estimate of his parole eligibility is at 35-40% of his sentence. Buckley asserts that he relied on this misinformation in entering his guilty plea, rendering his plea involuntary and unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable- to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Corey Buckley (“Buckley”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, Buckley claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Buckley claims that plea counsel affirmatively misrepresented that Buckley would be eligible for parole after serving 25% of his eighteen year sentence when an actual estimate of his parole eligibility is at 35-40% of his sentence. Buckley asserts that he relied on this misinformation in entering his guilty plea, rendering his plea involuntary and unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable- to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 S.W.3d 809, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, 2015 WL 1813025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buckley-v-state-moctapp-2015.