Ludgood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ludgood v. State

101 S.W.3d 342, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2003 WL 1701907

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81686

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.W.3d 342 (Ludgood 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

Ludgood v. State, 101 S.W.3d 342, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2003 WL 1701907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Dwayne Ludgood, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without a hearing. Movant contends that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he would have to serve 85 percent of his sentence under section 558.019, RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Dwayne Ludgood, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without a hearing. Movant contends that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that he would have to serve 85 percent of his sentence under section 558.019, RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.W.3d 342, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2003 WL 1701907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludgood-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack