Mack v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mack v. State

554 S.W.3d 918

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 2018

DocketWD 80762

StatusPublished

This text of 554 S.W.3d 918 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 554 S.W.3d 918 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam:

Bradley Mack ("Mack") appeals the Circuit Court of Jackson County's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Mack was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, as a prior offender. Mack was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. As relevant to this appeal, Mack argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a plea offer from the State. The motion court denied Mack's claim, as it found the lead trial attorney's ("Trial Counsel") testimony credible that Mack was informed about the plea offer but that Mack chose to decline the offer against the advice of counsel. Mack appeals. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per curiam:

Bradley Mack ("Mack") appeals the Circuit Court of Jackson County's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Mack was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, as a prior offender. Mack was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. As relevant to this appeal, Mack argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a plea offer from the State. The motion court denied Mack's claim, as it found the lead trial attorney's ("Trial Counsel") testimony credible that Mack was informed about the plea offer but that Mack chose to decline the offer against the advice of counsel. Mack appeals. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 S.W.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-moctapp-2018.