Murray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murray v. State

157 S.W.3d 385, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 366, 2005 WL 525255

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 2005

DocketED 84219

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 385 (Murray 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

Murray v. State, 157 S.W.3d 385, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 366, 2005 WL 525255 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rae Ann Murray appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary healing. She asserts her guilty plea lacked a factual basis. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rae Ann Murray appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary healing. She asserts her guilty plea lacked a factual basis. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 385, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 366, 2005 WL 525255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack