Childress v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Childress v. State

245 S.W.3d 264, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 219, 2008 WL 375611

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketED 89785

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W.3d 264 (Childress 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

Childress v. State, 245 S.W.3d 264, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 219, 2008 WL 375611 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alan Childress (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant claims two points on appeal. First, Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because irreconcilable differences existed between Movant and plea counsel, pressuring Movant to plead guilty. Second, Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely motion for continuance to provide Movant with an opportunity to secure private counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Alan Childress (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant claims two points on appeal. First, Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because irreconcilable differences existed between Movant and plea counsel, pressuring Movant to plead guilty. Second, Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely motion for continuance to provide Movant with an opportunity to secure private counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 264, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 219, 2008 WL 375611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childress-v-state-moctapp-2008.