Harris v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. State

392 S.W.3d 534, 2013 WL 704757, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 251

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98309

StatusPublished

This text of 392 S.W.3d 534 (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, 392 S.W.3d 534, 2013 WL 704757, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 251 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief -without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising him that if he pleaded guilty, he would be required to serve no more than three years on his total sentence of fifteen years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief -without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising him that if he pleaded guilty, he would be required to serve no more than three years on his total sentence of fifteen years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 S.W.3d 534, 2013 WL 704757, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-moctapp-2013.