Flemmings v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Flemmings v. State

235 S.W.3d 71, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389, 2007 WL 2916158

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 9, 2007·No. ED 87886·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Darron Flemmings, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and therefore his pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made.

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 for 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, Darron Flemmings, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty and therefore his pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made.

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 for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Flemmings v. State, 235 S.W.3d 71, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389, 2007 WL 2916158 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

235 S.W.3d 71 (Flemmings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related