Burkes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burkes v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

DocketWD 70079

StatusPublished

This text of 299 S.W.3d 790 (Burkes 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 S.W.3d 790, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, 2010 WL 9944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkes-v-state-moctapp-2010.