Monroe v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Monroe v. State

541 S.W.3d 53

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 6, 2018·No. WD 80128·Published

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).

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

Pincite

541 S.W.3d 53 (Monroe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.