Nabors v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nabors v. State

482 S.W.3d 498, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 146, 2016 WL 769676

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102572

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 498 (Nabors 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

Nabors v. State, 482 S.W.3d 498, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 146, 2016 WL 769676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

. PER CURIAM

Devon Hassan Nabors pled guilty to first-degree robbery and armed criminal action arising out of an incident in which Nabors forcibly stole a wallet and cell phone from a .victim while displaying and threatening the use of a deadly weapon outside of a movie theatre in St. Louis County. Nabors filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that if'he pled guilty, he would be placed on probation, and for failing to advocate for a more favorable sentencing disposition by-introducing additional evidence regarding Nabors’ character. Because we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous, we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [499]*499reasons for this order 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

Devon Hassan Nabors pled guilty to first-degree robbery and armed criminal action arising out of an incident in which Nabors forcibly stole a wallet and cell phone from a .victim while displaying and threatening the use of a deadly weapon outside of a movie theatre in St. Louis County. Nabors filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that if'he pled guilty, he would be placed on probation, and for failing to advocate for a more favorable sentencing disposition by-introducing additional evidence regarding Nabors’ character. Because we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous, we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the [499]*499reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 498, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 146, 2016 WL 769676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nabors-v-state-moctapp-2016.