Connor v. State

249 S.W.3d 921, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 521, 2008 WL 1722735
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 15, 2008·No. ED 89809·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Connor (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant *922 contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because plea counsel coerced his guilty plea by telling him that he was “guaranteed” a sentence of thirty to forty years if he went to trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Connor v. State, 249 S.W.3d 921, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 521, 2008 WL 1722735 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

249 S.W.3d 921 (Connor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Werner-Leible v. Le Lu Metalcraft
249 S.W.3d 921 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)