Hood v. State
353 S.W.3d 475, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1611, 2011 WL 6258456
Opinion
ORDER
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
Hood v. State, 353 S.W.3d 475, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1611, 2011 WL 6258456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
353 S.W.3d 475 (Hood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
ASHING v. State
353 S.W.3d 475 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)