Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

303 S.W.3d 632, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 223, 2010 WL 623643

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

DocketED 92602

StatusPublished

This text of 303 S.W.3d 632 (Davis 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

Davis v. State, 303 S.W.3d 632, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 223, 2010 WL 623643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ehrman L. Davis (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to kidnapping, Section 565.110 RSMo (2000) 1 , tampering with a motor vehicle, Section 569.080, assault in the second degree, Section 565.060, and property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100. Movant now appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because the record does not refute his claim that the plea judge was biased and his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate witnesses who would have provided Movant with a viable alibi.

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).

1

. All further statutory references herein are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ehrman L. Davis (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to kidnapping, Section 565.110 RSMo (2000) 1 , tampering with a motor vehicle, Section 569.080, assault in the second degree, Section 565.060, and property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100. Movant now appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because the record does not refute his claim that the plea judge was biased and his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate witnesses who would have provided Movant with a viable alibi.

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).

1

. All further statutory references herein are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 632, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 223, 2010 WL 623643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-moctapp-2010.