Eddy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Eddy v. State

269 S.W.3d 49, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2008 WL 4903632

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

DocketED 90391

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W.3d 49 (Eddy 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

Eddy v. State, 269 S.W.3d 49, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2008 WL 4903632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Thomas Eddy appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable John F. Kintz presiding, after Eddy pleaded guilty to stealing as a third offense pursuant to a plea agreement. Judge Kintz sentenced Eddy to seven years in prison. Eddy filed a Rule 24.035 motion, which the court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, finding that Eddy waived his right to appeal and all post conviction rights.

Eddy argues on appeal that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because Eddy pled that his counsel failed to inform him that the State’s previous plea offer of four years had time constraints, and that had counsel informed him of the time constraints, Eddy would have accepted the previous plea offer before it expired.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Appellant Thomas Eddy appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable John F. Kintz presiding, after Eddy pleaded guilty to stealing as a third offense pursuant to a plea agreement. Judge Kintz sentenced Eddy to seven years in prison. Eddy filed a Rule 24.035 motion, which the court dismissed without an evidentiary hearing, finding that Eddy waived his right to appeal and all post conviction rights.

Eddy argues on appeal that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because Eddy pled that his counsel failed to inform him that the State’s previous plea offer of four years had time constraints, and that had counsel informed him of the time constraints, Eddy would have accepted the previous plea offer before it expired.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W.3d 49, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2008 WL 4903632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddy-v-state-moctapp-2008.