Hood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hood v. State

353 S.W.3d 475, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1611, 2011 WL 6258456

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

DocketWD 72573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 S.W.3d 475 (Hood 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

Hood v. State, 353 S.W.3d 475, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1611, 2011 WL 6258456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Steven Hood appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Hood claims that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the plea court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment 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:

Steven Hood appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Hood claims that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the plea court failed to establish a factual basis for the plea. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 475, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1611, 2011 WL 6258456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack