McCabe v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCabe v. State

492 S.W.3d 630, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 622, 2016 WL 3418518

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103325

StatusPublished

This text of 492 S.W.3d 630 (McCabe 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

McCabe v. State, 492 S.W.3d 630, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 622, 2016 WL 3418518 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Scott McCabe (Movant) appeals the judgment of Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. In one point on appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred by denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he established facts unrefuted by the record that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he entered a' blind plea of guilty, he would be sentenced to a long-term drug treatment program, and as a result, Mov-ant’s plea was involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for. the use of the parties setting forth the- reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Scott McCabe (Movant) appeals the judgment of Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. In one point on appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred by denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he established facts unrefuted by the record that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him that if he entered a' blind plea of guilty, he would be sentenced to a long-term drug treatment program, and as a result, Mov-ant’s plea was involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for. the use of the parties setting forth the- reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.3d 630, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 622, 2016 WL 3418518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccabe-v-state-moctapp-2016.