Burston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burston v. State

424 S.W.3d 483, 2014 WL 1016937, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 303

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 18, 2014·No. No. ED 99735·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Burston (Movant) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant asserts that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail[484] ing to inform Movant of a four-year sentence plea offer. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Burston (Movant) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant asserts that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail[484] ing to inform Movant of a four-year sentence plea offer. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Burston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 483, 2014 WL 1016937, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 303 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

424 S.W.3d 483 (Burston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.