HUMBLES v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

HUMBLES v. State

303 S.W.3d 652, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, 2010 WL 623713

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

DocketED 93317

StatusPublished

This text of 303 S.W.3d 652 (HUMBLES 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

HUMBLES v. State, 303 S.W.3d 652, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, 2010 WL 623713 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demetrius Humbles (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the St. Louis County Circuit Court denying his Rule 24.035 mo *653 tion for post-conviction relief ■without a hearing. Movant claims that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion without a hearing because he pled sufficient facts not refuted by the record showing that his plea counsel was ineffective by: (1) threatening him with certain conviction and a life sentence if he went to trial; and (2) failing to investigate three defense witnesses who would have testified in support of Movant’s claim that he acted in self-defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Demetrius Humbles (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the St. Louis County Circuit Court denying his Rule 24.035 mo *653 tion for post-conviction relief ■without a hearing. Movant claims that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion without a hearing because he pled sufficient facts not refuted by the record showing that his plea counsel was ineffective by: (1) threatening him with certain conviction and a life sentence if he went to trial; and (2) failing to investigate three defense witnesses who would have testified in support of Movant’s claim that he acted in self-defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 652, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, 2010 WL 623713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humbles-v-state-moctapp-2010.