Lomax v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lomax v. State

895 S.W.2d 204, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 1995 WL 57898

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 1995

DocketNo. 66376

StatusPublished

This text of 895 S.W.2d 204 (Lomax 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

Lomax v. State, 895 S.W.2d 204, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 1995 WL 57898 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On June 23, 1993, movant’s jury trial on a charge of possession of heroin began. Apparently before the jury was finally selected, movant indicated his desire to plead guilty. Pursuant to Rule 24.02, the trial court informed movant of his rights and determined that the plea was voluntary.

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 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.

On June 23, 1993, movant’s jury trial on a charge of possession of heroin began. Apparently before the jury was finally selected, movant indicated his desire to plead guilty. Pursuant to Rule 24.02, the trial court informed movant of his rights and determined that the plea was voluntary.

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 is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 S.W.2d 204, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 260, 1995 WL 57898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lomax-v-state-moctapp-1995.