Massey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Massey v. State

976 S.W.2d 600, 1998 WL 611050

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 1998

DocketNo. 73603

StatusPublished

This text of 976 S.W.2d 600 (Massey 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

Massey v. State, 976 S.W.2d 600, 1998 WL 611050 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Massey (Movant) pleaded guilty to first degree robbery, armed criminal action and attempted kidnapping. He filed a Rule 24.085 motion, which was amended by appointed counsel. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. Movant appeals from this judgment, contending he is entitled to a hearing on his allegation that his counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately consult with him and prepare a defense for him.

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). Movant’s allegations are conclusively refuted by the guilty plea transcript. Rule 24.035(h). Furthermore, Movant completely fails to allege facts entitling him to relief. Tolen v. State, 934 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. 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.

Jeffrey Massey (Movant) pleaded guilty to first degree robbery, armed criminal action and attempted kidnapping. He filed a Rule 24.085 motion, which was amended by appointed counsel. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. Movant appeals from this judgment, contending he is entitled to a hearing on his allegation that his counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately consult with him and prepare a defense for him.

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). Movant’s allegations are conclusively refuted by the guilty plea transcript. Rule 24.035(h). Furthermore, Movant completely fails to allege facts entitling him to relief. Tolen v. State, 934 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

976 S.W.2d 600, 1998 WL 611050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack