Hardin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hardin v. State

507 S.W.3d 618, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1305, 2016 WL 7385584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103901

StatusPublished

This text of 507 S.W.3d 618 (Hardin 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

Hardin v. State, 507 S.W.3d 618, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1305, 2016 WL 7385584 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry D. Hardin (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his amended Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous, as the record clearly refutes Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry D. Hardin (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his amended Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous, as the record clearly refutes Movant’s claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 S.W.3d 618, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1305, 2016 WL 7385584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardin-v-state-moctapp-2016.