Donelson v. State

130 S.W.3d 722, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2004 WL 556701
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 23, 2004
DocketNo. ED 83088
StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.W.3d 722 (Donelson 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
Donelson v. State, 130 S.W.3d 722, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2004 WL 556701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shannon Donelson appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his second Rule 24.0351 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously reversed and remanded in part his initial Rule 24.035 motion, ordering the motion court to determine whether there was a factual basis for his plea of guilty to armed criminal action and, if not, to consider his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim regarding his guilty pleas to first-degree robbery [723]*723and first-degree tampering. Donelson v. State, 34 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Upon remand, the trial court vacated the armed criminal action conviction and resentenced him for the other two offenses. He now contends his attorney provided ineffective assistance during the resentencing hearing.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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

Related

Donelson v. State
34 S.W.3d 827 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 S.W.3d 722, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 395, 2004 WL 556701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donelson-v-state-moctapp-2004.