Markle v. State
This text of 318 S.W.3d 323 (Markle 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.
Opinion
ORDER
John Markle (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts, not conclusively refuted by the record, that (1) the guilty plea to the charge of armed criminal action lacked a factual basis, and (2) the guilty plea to the charge of murder in the second degree lacked a factual basis.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished •with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
318 S.W.3d 323, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 2010 WL 3314784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markle-v-state-moctapp-2010.