Ellis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ellis v. State

194 S.W.3d 924, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1036, 2006 WL 1827452

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ellis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 522 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 5, 2006·No. No. ED 86680·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Eddie Ellis, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that a life sentence is calculated at thirty years and he would have to serve eighty-five percent of that sentence before being eligible for parole.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum [925]*925for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment 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.

Movant, Eddie Ellis, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to inform him that a life sentence is calculated at thirty years and he would have to serve eighty-five percent of that sentence before being eligible for parole.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum [925]*925for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Ellis v. State, 194 S.W.3d 924, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1036, 2006 WL 1827452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

194 S.W.3d 924 (Ellis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.