Murray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murray v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 2005·No. ED 84219·Published

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).

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

Pincite

157 S.W.3d 385 (Murray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related