Harlow v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harlow v. State

565 S.W.3d 200

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106472

StatusPublished

This text of 565 S.W.3d 200 (Harlow 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

Harlow v. State, 565 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Preston Harlow appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Harlow claims that the motion court clearly erred because his conviction of the class C felony of stealing and sentence of seven years' imprisonment were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Preston Harlow appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Harlow claims that the motion court clearly erred because his conviction of the class C felony of stealing and sentence of seven years' imprisonment were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 S.W.3d 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlow-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack