Harlow v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harlow v. State

565 S.W.3d 200

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 16, 2018·No. No. ED 106472·Published

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).

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

Pincite

565 S.W.3d 200 (Harlow v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related