Everett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Everett v. State

174 S.W.3d 82, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1527, 2005 WL 2746548

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 85635

StatusPublished

This text of 174 S.W.3d 82 (Everett 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

Everett v. State, 174 S.W.3d 82, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1527, 2005 WL 2746548 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Courtney Everett (“Everett”) appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Emmett M. O’Brien presiding,' denying Everett’s motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 24.035, without an evi-dentiary hearing, after Everett pled guilty to one count of Assault in the First Degree, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo. (2000), 1 one count of Armed Criminal Action, in violation of Section 571.015, and one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Courtney Everett (“Everett”) appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Emmett M. O’Brien presiding,' denying Everett’s motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 24.035, without an evi-dentiary hearing, after Everett pled guilty to one count of Assault in the First Degree, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo. (2000), 1 one count of Armed Criminal Action, in violation of Section 571.015, and one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.W.3d 82, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1527, 2005 WL 2746548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack