Hunter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hunter v. State

169 S.W.3d 890, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1269, 2005 WL 2076888

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 30, 2005·No. ED 85369·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Michael Hunter, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to negotiate a plea agreement for a more favorable sentence than he received.

*891 The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. 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.

Movant, Michael Hunter, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to negotiate a plea agreement for a more favorable sentence than he received.

*891 The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Hunter v. State, 169 S.W.3d 890, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1269, 2005 WL 2076888 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

169 S.W.3d 890 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.