Forbeck v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Forbeck v. State

475 S.W.3d 213, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1142, 2015 WL 6927959

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102484

StatusPublished

This text of 475 S.W.3d 213 (Forbeck 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

Forbeck v. State, 475 S.W.3d 213, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1142, 2015 WL 6927959 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

ORDER

Christopher Forbeck (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred by denying his post-conviction motion because he established that plea counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Movant argues that plea counsel was ineffective for (l) 'not explaining to Movant that failing to pay restitution on time would cause his. probation to be revoked and (2) not explaining that Movant could not hunt with firearms during probation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties- and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

ORDER

Christopher Forbeck (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred by denying his post-conviction motion because he established that plea counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Movant argues that plea counsel was ineffective for (l) 'not explaining to Movant that failing to pay restitution on time would cause his. probation to be revoked and (2) not explaining that Movant could not hunt with firearms during probation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties- and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 S.W.3d 213, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1142, 2015 WL 6927959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forbeck-v-state-moctapp-2015.