Mercer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mercer v. State

428 S.W.3d 660, 2013 WL 6858286, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1547

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 31, 2013·No. No. WD 75896·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ryshod Mercer appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion asserted that Mercer received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his attorney assured Mercer that the trial court would sentence him to probation. Mercer claims that he was entitled to a hearing on the Rule 24.035 motion because it alleged facts, not conclusions, that were not refuted by the record and that, if true, would entitled him to relief. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ryshod Mercer appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion asserted that Mercer received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his attorney assured Mercer that the trial court would sentence him to probation. Mercer claims that he was entitled to a hearing on the Rule 24.035 motion because it alleged facts, not conclusions, that were not refuted by the record and that, if true, would entitled him to relief. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Mercer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 660, 2013 WL 6858286, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

428 S.W.3d 660 (Mercer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.