Bunch v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bunch v. State

479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2016 WL 145354

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102136

StatusPublished

This text of 479 S.W.3d 737 (Bunch 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

Bunch v. State, 479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2016 WL 145354 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[738]*738 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Robert L. Bunch appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Bunch claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for leading him to believe that the court would not follow the State’s sentencing recommendation of twenty-four years in prison and that he could expect leniency from the court for pleading guilty. Because the record refutés Bunch’s claims, we affirm.

The judgment of the- trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[738]*738 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Robert L. Bunch appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Bunch claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for leading him to believe that the court would not follow the State’s sentencing recommendation of twenty-four years in prison and that he could expect leniency from the court for pleading guilty. Because the record refutés Bunch’s claims, we affirm.

The judgment of the- trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 2016 WL 145354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunch-v-state-moctapp-2016.