Jones v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. State

146 S.W.3d 440, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1504, 2004 WL 2340062

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jones v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1636 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 19, 2004·No. No. ED 83790·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roy Jones appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He contends he involuntarily pleaded guilty because his plea counsel failed to assert a meritorious defense of entrapment.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Roy Jones appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He contends he involuntarily pleaded guilty because his plea counsel failed to assert a meritorious defense of entrapment.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Jones v. State, 146 S.W.3d 440, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1504, 2004 WL 2340062 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

146 S.W.3d 440 (Jones v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.