McClendon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McClendon v. State

479 S.W.3d 670, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1014, 2015 WL 5823974

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketED 102442

StatusPublished

This text of 479 S.W.3d 670 (McClendon 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

McClendon v. State, 479 S.W.3d 670, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1014, 2015 WL 5823974 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jerome McClendon (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was charged as a prior and persis[671]*671tent offender with the class C felony of stealing, in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2012. Movant entered a blind guilty plea and was sentenced to seven years in prison.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the -record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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

Jerome McClendon (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was charged as a prior and persis[671]*671tent offender with the class C felony of stealing, in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2012. Movant entered a blind guilty plea and was sentenced to seven years in prison.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the -record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant" to Rule 84.16(b).- .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.3d 670, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1014, 2015 WL 5823974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclendon-v-state-moctapp-2015.