DOMINICUS v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

DOMINICUS v. State

359 S.W.3d 581, 2012 WL 642549, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 240

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

DocketED 96587

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 581 (DOMINICUS 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

DOMINICUS v. State, 359 S.W.3d 581, 2012 WL 642549, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 240 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Conrad Dominicus (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary-hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that: (1) pleading guilty would affect his immigration status; and (2) he would be required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the 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.

Conrad Dominicus (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary-hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that: (1) pleading guilty would affect his immigration status; and (2) he would be required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 581, 2012 WL 642549, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominicus-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack