Harvell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harvell v. State

241 S.W.3d 422, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733, 2007 WL 4394446

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

DocketED 89588

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.W.3d 422 (Harvell 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

Harvell v. State, 241 S.W.3d 422, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733, 2007 WL 4394446 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Devaron Harvell (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) there was not a factual basis to support his guilty plea for first-degree robbery, (2) there was not a factual basis to support his guilty plea for armed criminal action, and (3) his counsel was ineffective for urging him to plead guilty and for failing to object when the plea court accepted Movant’s guilty plea without a factual basis.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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.

Devaron Harvell (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) there was not a factual basis to support his guilty plea for first-degree robbery, (2) there was not a factual basis to support his guilty plea for armed criminal action, and (3) his counsel was ineffective for urging him to plead guilty and for failing to object when the plea court accepted Movant’s guilty plea without a factual basis.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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)

241 S.W.3d 422, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733, 2007 WL 4394446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvell-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack