Cates v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cates v. State

358 S.W.3d 561, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2012 WL 381781

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketED 96983

StatusPublished

This text of 358 S.W.3d 561 (Cates 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

Cates v. State, 358 S.W.3d 561, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2012 WL 381781 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Cates (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts, not refuted by the record, that his plea counsel was ineffective for promising that he would only receive ten-year sentences for each of the first-degree robbery and armed criminal action counts, and thereby rendering Mov-ant’s guilty pleas involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the *562 detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Cates (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts, not refuted by the record, that his plea counsel was ineffective for promising that he would only receive ten-year sentences for each of the first-degree robbery and armed criminal action counts, and thereby rendering Mov-ant’s guilty pleas involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the *562 detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 561, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2012 WL 381781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cates-v-state-moctapp-2012.