Hicks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

945 S.W.2d 39, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 735, 1997 WL 206195

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1997

DocketNo. 70986

StatusPublished

This text of 945 S.W.2d 39 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 39, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 735, 1997 WL 206195 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Everlee Hicks appeals from the motion court’s judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing.¹ He alleges the motion court erred when it denied the motion because the record clearly shows his counsel was ineffective by failing to request a change of venue before his guilty plea. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Everlee Hicks appeals from the motion court’s judgment dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing.¹ He alleges the motion court erred when it denied the motion because the record clearly shows his counsel was ineffective by failing to request a change of venue before his guilty plea. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

945 S.W.2d 39, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 735, 1997 WL 206195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack