Hall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hall v. State

263 S.W.3d 809, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1291, 2008 WL 4330333

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hall v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 520 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 23, 2008·No. No. ED 90959·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John R. Hall (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.

[810]*810We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no clear error because the plea record contained a sufficient factual basis for Mov-ant’s guilty plea and plea counsel was not ineffective. 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.

We affirm the judgment 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.

John R. Hall (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.

[810]*810We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no clear error because the plea record contained a sufficient factual basis for Mov-ant’s guilty plea and plea counsel was not ineffective. 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.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hall v. State, 263 S.W.3d 809, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1291, 2008 WL 4330333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

263 S.W.3d 809 (Hall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.