Judge v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Judge v. State

331 S.W.3d 346, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 138, 2011 WL 532128

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 2011

DocketED 94363

StatusPublished

This text of 331 S.W.3d 346 (Judge 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

Judge v. State, 331 S.W.3d 346, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 138, 2011 WL 532128 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Judge (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to trafficking in the second degree, Section 195.223 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced as a prior drug offender and a persistent felony offender to ten years’ imprisonment. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant raises two points on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because the State failed to alleged the quantity of cocaine base found and did not establish Movant knowingly possessed it, and his plea counsel misled him into believing he would receive probation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Reginald Judge (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to trafficking in the second degree, Section 195.223 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced as a prior drug offender and a persistent felony offender to ten years’ imprisonment. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant raises two points on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because the State failed to alleged the quantity of cocaine base found and did not establish Movant knowingly possessed it, and his plea counsel misled him into believing he would receive probation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 346, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 138, 2011 WL 532128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judge-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack