Edwards v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Edwards v. State

297 S.W.3d 659, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1667, 2009 WL 4278820

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Edwards v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 309 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 24, 2009·No. ED 92864·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Edwards (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006), and second-degree assault, Section 565.060 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises two points on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his plea counsel failed to file a motion for a bill of particulars and a motion to dismiss, and his plea *660 counsel failed to locate, interview, and endorse a witness.

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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Edwards (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) pleaded guilty to forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006), and second-degree assault, Section 565.060 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises two points on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his plea counsel failed to file a motion for a bill of particulars and a motion to dismiss, and his plea *660 counsel failed to locate, interview, and endorse a witness.

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).

Edwards v. State, 297 S.W.3d 659, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1667, 2009 WL 4278820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

297 S.W.3d 659 (Edwards v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.