HARDGE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

HARDGE v. State

224 S.W.3d 613, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, 2007 WL 1120283

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 2007·No. ED 87970·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Hardge appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not err in denying Hardge’s motion without an evi-dentiary hearing because the facts alleged did not warrant relief and his plea was made voluntarily and intelligently.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. *614 We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Hardge appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not err in denying Hardge’s motion without an evi-dentiary hearing because the facts alleged did not warrant relief and his plea was made voluntarily and intelligently.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. *614 We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

HARDGE v. State, 224 S.W.3d 613, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, 2007 WL 1120283 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

224 S.W.3d 613 (HARDGE v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.