Lindley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lindley v. State

272 S.W.3d 408, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1480, 2008 WL 4901745

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2008

DocketED 90559

StatusPublished

This text of 272 S.W.3d 408 (Lindley 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

Lindley v. State, 272 S.W.3d 408, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1480, 2008 WL 4901745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darren Lindley (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court clearly erred in denying his request for relief because there was insufficient factual basis to support his plea and he was denied effective assistance of plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *409 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darren Lindley (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court clearly erred in denying his request for relief because there was insufficient factual basis to support his plea and he was denied effective assistance of plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no *409 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.W.3d 408, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1480, 2008 WL 4901745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindley-v-state-moctapp-2008.