Holmes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Holmes v. State

190 S.W.3d 563, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2006 WL 1147655

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86610

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 563 (Holmes 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

Holmes v. State, 190 S.W.3d 563, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2006 WL 1147655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Holmes (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.085 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant raises three points on appeal. First, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about the length of his sentence. Second, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advocate for a shorter sentence, or alternatively, for failing to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Finally, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress statements. Movant argues that had his counsel provided effective assistance, he would have refused to plead guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Isaac Holmes (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.085 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant raises three points on appeal. First, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about the length of his sentence. Second, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advocate for a shorter sentence, or alternatively, for failing to file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Finally, Movant claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress statements. Movant argues that had his counsel provided effective assistance, he would have refused to plead guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 563, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, 2006 WL 1147655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack