Johnson v. State

290 S.W.3d 194, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1177, 2009 WL 2500586
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 18, 2009·No. ED 91366·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Darryl Johnson, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.085 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that the court erred in denying his motion because his counsel *195 erroneously advised him about the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions 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

Johnson v. State, 290 S.W.3d 194, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1177, 2009 WL 2500586 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

290 S.W.3d 194 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Ernst
290 S.W.3d 194 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)