Kelly v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kelly v. State

208 S.W.3d 919, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1940, 2006 WL 3718045

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kelly v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1381 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 2006·No. ED 87861·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Kelly (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to one count of sale of a *920 controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to have the KEL tape tested for alterations, coercing him into pleading guilty, and failing to investigate a witness for his defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. We find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Kevin Kelly (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to one count of sale of a *920 controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to have the KEL tape tested for alterations, coercing him into pleading guilty, and failing to investigate a witness for his defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. We find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Kelly v. State, 208 S.W.3d 919, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1940, 2006 WL 3718045 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

208 S.W.3d 919 (Kelly v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.