Craigg v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Craigg v. State

537 S.W.3d 888

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105718

StatusPublished

This text of 537 S.W.3d 888 (Craigg 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

Craigg v. State, 537 S.W.3d 888 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Skipper R. Craigg (“Craigg”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to plea negotiations, Craigg pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Craig was sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence. The execution of the sentence was suspended and Craigg was put on probation. After Craigg’s probation was revoked and his sentence was executed, Craigg filed a Rule 24.035 motion sought to set aside his guilty plea. In his amended motion, Craig contends that his plea was involuntary because plea counsel did not inform him of the State’s burden of proof and failed to interview a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

Skipper R. Craigg (“Craigg”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Pursuant to plea negotiations, Craigg pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Craig was sentenced to a fifteen-year sentence. The execution of the sentence was suspended and Craigg was put on probation. After Craigg’s probation was revoked and his sentence was executed, Craigg filed a Rule 24.035 motion sought to set aside his guilty plea. In his amended motion, Craig contends that his plea was involuntary because plea counsel did not inform him of the State’s burden of proof and failed to interview a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 S.W.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craigg-v-state-moctapp-2018.