Cummings v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cummings v. State

323 S.W.3d 81, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1367, 2010 WL 3971359

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 2010·No. ED 93990·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Korey Cummings (Cummings) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Cummings argues that the guilty pleas he entered lacked a sufficient factual basis, and, therefore, his pleas were not given knowingly and voluntarily. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Cummings is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s 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.

Korey Cummings (Cummings) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Cummings argues that the guilty pleas he entered lacked a sufficient factual basis, and, therefore, his pleas were not given knowingly and voluntarily. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Cummings is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cummings v. State, 323 S.W.3d 81, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1367, 2010 WL 3971359 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

323 S.W.3d 81 (Cummings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.