Fountain-Bey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fountain-Bey v. State

35 S.W.3d 472, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1702, 2000 WL 1701901

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fountain-Bey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2470 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 14, 2000·No. No. ED 77723·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

DeWarren Fountain Bey (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.085 motion in that the trial court improperly applied the escape rule and he was not granted the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas. We affirm.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment of the court is supported by the evidence and thus, not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

DeWarren Fountain Bey (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.085 motion in that the trial court improperly applied the escape rule and he was not granted the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas. We affirm.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment of the court is supported by the evidence and thus, not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Fountain-Bey v. State, 35 S.W.3d 472, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1702, 2000 WL 1701901 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

35 S.W.3d 472 (Fountain-Bey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.