Clemons v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clemons v. State

525 S.W.3d 217, 2017 WL 3597069, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 810

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104925

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 525 S.W.3d 217 (Clemons 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

Clemons v. State, 525 S.W.3d 217, 2017 WL 3597069, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 810 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darnell A. Clemons (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant asserts three points on appeal. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion without an ev-identiary hearing because he alleged facts, supported by the record and the law, that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to properly prepare Movant for his guilty plea; (2) failing to seek an Alford plea; and (3) failing to request a lesser-included offense instruction of false imprisonment, as a lesser-included offense for kidnapping. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darnell A. Clemons (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant asserts three points on appeal. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion without an ev-identiary hearing because he alleged facts, supported by the record and the law, that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to properly prepare Movant for his guilty plea; (2) failing to seek an Alford plea; and (3) failing to request a lesser-included offense instruction of false imprisonment, as a lesser-included offense for kidnapping. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.3d 217, 2017 WL 3597069, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clemons-v-state-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack