Hoosier v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hoosier v. State

383 S.W.3d 69, 2012 WL 5207622, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1349

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 S.W.3d 69 (Hoosier 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

Hoosier v. State, 383 S.W.3d 69, 2012 WL 5207622, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1349 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Hoosier, (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ Movant contends the plea court failed to advise him that first degree robbery is a “dangerous felony,” for which the mandatory minimum prison sentence is eighty-five percent of any sentence imposed. Appellant contends he would not have entered an Alford plea had he known of this mandatory minimum prison sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Hoosier, (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ Movant contends the plea court failed to advise him that first degree robbery is a “dangerous felony,” for which the mandatory minimum prison sentence is eighty-five percent of any sentence imposed. Appellant contends he would not have entered an Alford plea had he known of this mandatory minimum prison sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 S.W.3d 69, 2012 WL 5207622, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoosier-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack