Hicks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242958, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 475

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2012

DocketED 96863

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 S.W.3d 262 (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, 364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242958, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 475 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Hicks (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-con *263 viction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to correct misstatements of fact that were material to the sentence imposed and the motion court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary reading on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel when Movant’s guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Hicks (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-con *263 viction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to correct misstatements of fact that were material to the sentence imposed and the motion court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary reading on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel when Movant’s guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242958, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack