Hayden v. State
This text of 306 S.W.3d 202 (Hayden 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.
Opinion
*203 ORDER
Kevin Hayden (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying the motion because his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by either failing to advise or misadvising Movant regarding his eligibility for parole.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Mo. Sup.Ct. R. (2009), unless otherwise indicated.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
306 S.W.3d 202, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 313, 2010 WL 933815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayden-v-state-moctapp-2010.