Harrold v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harrold v. State

202 S.W.3d 39, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2006 WL 2728654

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 26, 2006

DocketED 86810

StatusPublished

This text of 202 S.W.3d 39 (Harrold 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

Harrold v. State, 202 S.W.3d 39, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2006 WL 2728654 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alfonza A. Harrold (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020, 1 and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. The trial court sentenced Movant to concurrent terms of 20 years imprisonment on the robbery conviction and 10 years imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alfonza A. Harrold (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020, 1 and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. The trial court sentenced Movant to concurrent terms of 20 years imprisonment on the robbery conviction and 10 years imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 S.W.3d 39, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2006 WL 2728654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrold-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack