Mitchem v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mitchem v. State

211 S.W.3d 670, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 109, 2007 WL 146468

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 23, 2007

DocketWD 66344

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 S.W.3d 670 (Mitchem 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

Mitchem v. State, 211 S.W.3d 670, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 109, 2007 WL 146468 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Marcus E. Mitchem appeals the motion court’s denial of his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Mitchem claims that motion court erred because there was no factual basis established for his plea of guilty.

Having carefully considered the contentions on appeal, we find no grounds for reversing the decision. Publication of a formal opinion would not serve jurisprudential purposes or add to understanding of existing law. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Marcus E. Mitchem appeals the motion court’s denial of his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Mitchem claims that motion court erred because there was no factual basis established for his plea of guilty.

Having carefully considered the contentions on appeal, we find no grounds for reversing the decision. Publication of a formal opinion would not serve jurisprudential purposes or add to understanding of existing law. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 670, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 109, 2007 WL 146468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchem-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack