Cummins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cummins v. State

267 S.W.3d 734, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2008 WL 3843826

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90737

StatusPublished

This text of 267 S.W.3d 734 (Cummins 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

Cummins v. State, 267 S.W.3d 734, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2008 WL 3843826 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerome Cummins (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for inducing him to plead guilty and failing to investigate his mental state at the time of his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We 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. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerome Cummins (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for inducing him to plead guilty and failing to investigate his mental state at the time of his guilty plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We 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. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 S.W.3d 734, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2008 WL 3843826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummins-v-state-moctapp-2008.