Little v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Little v. State

476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1168, 2015 WL 7253160

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102200

StatusPublished

This text of 476 S.W.3d 311 (Little 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

Little v. State, 476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1168, 2015 WL 7253160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Tyrone Little (“Little”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, Little claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Specifically, Little asserts that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by unreasonably pressuring Little to plead guilty. Little argues that plea counsel’s failure rendered his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 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

Appellant Tyrone Little (“Little”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, Little claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts that, if proven, would entitle him to relief. Specifically, Little asserts that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by unreasonably pressuring Little to plead guilty. Little argues that plea counsel’s failure rendered his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1168, 2015 WL 7253160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-state-moctapp-2015.