Monroe v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Monroe v. State

541 S.W.3d 53

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2018

DocketWD 80128

StatusPublished

This text of 541 S.W.3d 53 (Monroe 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

Monroe v. State, 541 S.W.3d 53 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Daleron Monroe appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after a hearing. He presents two points on appeal. First, he claims a reasonably competent attorney would have requested disqualification of the Cole County Prosecutor's Office or of a particular prosecutor.

*54Second, he claims the trial court erred in finding that a particular prosecutor did not represent the State of Missouri at the guilty plea hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Daleron Monroe appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after a hearing. He presents two points on appeal. First, he claims a reasonably competent attorney would have requested disqualification of the Cole County Prosecutor's Office or of a particular prosecutor.

*54Second, he claims the trial court erred in finding that a particular prosecutor did not represent the State of Missouri at the guilty plea hearing. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.3d 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-state-moctapp-2018.