Goodin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Goodin v. State

531 S.W.3d 106

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2017·No. No. ED 104939·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Daniel Goodin (“Movant") appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant pleaded guilty to the class B felony of first-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.160 (RSMo. 2000). Movant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been 'furnished with a memorandum for their’ information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Daniel Goodin (“Movant") appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant pleaded guilty to the class B felony of first-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.160 (RSMo. 2000). Movant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been 'furnished with a memorandum for their’ information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Goodin v. State, 531 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

531 S.W.3d 106 (Goodin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.