Burkes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burkes v. State

299 S.W.3d 790, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2010 WL 9944

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 5, 2010·No. WD 70079·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Joe Burkes appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary-hearing. On appeal, Burkes claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis for his guilty plea and because the plea court lost jurisdiction due to the State’s delay in filing the information. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.i6(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Joe Burkes appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary-hearing. On appeal, Burkes claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis for his guilty plea and because the plea court lost jurisdiction due to the State’s delay in filing the information. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.i6(b).

Burkes v. State, 299 S.W.3d 790, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2010 WL 9944 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

299 S.W.3d 790 (Burkes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.