Nailor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nailor v. State

559 S.W.3d 413

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106147

StatusPublished

This text of 559 S.W.3d 413 (Nailor 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

Nailor v. State, 559 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Emanuel Nailor pled guilty in St. Louis County circuit court to first-degree robbery and armed criminal action arising out of a gunpoint robbery involving a motor vehicle. Nailor was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years' imprisonment on each charge. We now consider the denial without an evidentiary hearing of Nailor's Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Nailor's sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective because he erroneously advised him that if he pled guilty, he would be sentenced to "a five year sentence on armed criminal action and a fifteen year suspended execution of sentence with five years' probation." The motion court found this claim refuted by the record. Because we find that the motion court's denial was not clearly erroneous, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under to Rule 84.16.

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

PER CURIAM

Emanuel Nailor pled guilty in St. Louis County circuit court to first-degree robbery and armed criminal action arising out of a gunpoint robbery involving a motor vehicle. Nailor was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years' imprisonment on each charge. We now consider the denial without an evidentiary hearing of Nailor's Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Nailor's sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective because he erroneously advised him that if he pled guilty, he would be sentenced to "a five year sentence on armed criminal action and a fifteen year suspended execution of sentence with five years' probation." The motion court found this claim refuted by the record. Because we find that the motion court's denial was not clearly erroneous, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under to Rule 84.16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 S.W.3d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nailor-v-state-moctapp-2018.