McLemore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McLemore v. State

280 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 459, 2009 WL 983064

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 2009

DocketED 91407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 S.W.3d 783 (McLemore 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

McLemore v. State, 280 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 459, 2009 WL 983064 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kaylyn McLemore (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pled guilty to one count of second-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.030. 1 The trial court sentenced Mov-ant to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Mov-ant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel, pursuant to Rule 24.035. The motion court denied Movant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.

*784 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kaylyn McLemore (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pled guilty to one count of second-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.030. 1 The trial court sentenced Mov-ant to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Mov-ant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions alleging ineffective assistance of his plea counsel, pursuant to Rule 24.035. The motion court denied Movant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.

*784 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 783, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 459, 2009 WL 983064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclemore-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack