Douglas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Douglas v. State

397 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 1615567, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 464

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98445

StatusPublished

This text of 397 S.W.3d 42 (Douglas 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

Douglas v. State, 397 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 1615567, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cornelius Douglas, Jr., (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because the record does not refute his [43]*43claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Movant prior to his guilty plea that if convicted, Movant faced the risk of confinement as a sexually violent predator.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find 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.

Cornelius Douglas, Jr., (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because the record does not refute his [43]*43claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Movant prior to his guilty plea that if convicted, Movant faced the risk of confinement as a sexually violent predator.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find 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)

397 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 1615567, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-state-moctapp-2013.