Lake v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lake v. State

570 S.W.3d 199

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106438

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 199 (Lake 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

Lake v. State, 570 S.W.3d 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

James R. Lake ("Lake") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Lake pleaded guilty to first-degree assault and first-degree robbery and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of twenty years in prison. In his sole point on appeal, Lake argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise Lake about a self-defense claim. The record clearly refutes Lake's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary or unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *200error 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

James R. Lake ("Lake") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Lake pleaded guilty to first-degree assault and first-degree robbery and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of twenty years in prison. In his sole point on appeal, Lake argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to properly advise Lake about a self-defense claim. The record clearly refutes Lake's claim that his guilty plea was involuntary or unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *200error 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lake-v-state-moctapp-2019.