Harris v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. State

219 S.W.3d 858, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 649, 2007 WL 1191666

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2007

DocketED 88232

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.W.3d 858 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 219 S.W.3d 858, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 649, 2007 WL 1191666 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laverne Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Washington County, denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, and the trial court sentenced Movant to seven years’ imprisonment. As grounds for denial of Movant’s motion, the court determined that the record refuted the facts Movant cited in support of her claim for relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laverne Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Washington County, denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of assault in the second degree, and the trial court sentenced Movant to seven years’ imprisonment. As grounds for denial of Movant’s motion, the court determined that the record refuted the facts Movant cited in support of her claim for relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 858, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 649, 2007 WL 1191666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack