LOVE-EL v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

LOVE-EL v. State

245 S.W.3d 924, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 248, 2008 WL 426259

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 2008

DocketED 89892

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 S.W.3d 924 (LOVE-EL 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

LOVE-EL v. State, 245 S.W.3d 924, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 248, 2008 WL 426259 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*925 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jimmy Love-El, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel coerced him into entering his guilty plea.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*925 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jimmy Love-El, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel coerced him into entering his guilty plea.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 924, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 248, 2008 WL 426259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-el-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack