Butler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Butler v. State

470 S.W.3d 794, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 954, 2015 WL 5575581

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 22, 2015·No. No. ED 102366·Published

Opinion

[795] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Butler appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Butler argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without a hearing because he alleged facts that were not refuted by the record showing that he was denied his right to self-representation, which rendered his guilty plea involuntary. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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

[795] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Butler appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Butler argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without a hearing because he alleged facts that were not refuted by the record showing that he was denied his right to self-representation, which rendered his guilty plea involuntary. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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).

Butler v. State, 470 S.W.3d 794, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 954, 2015 WL 5575581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

470 S.W.3d 794 (Butler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.