Newlon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Newlon v. State

556 S.W.3d 676

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106329

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 676 (Newlon 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

Newlon v. State, 556 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*677Melford Newlon appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Newlon claims that the motion court clearly erred because his convictions on nine counts of the class C felony of stealing and his nine concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to dismiss the charges and by advising him to plead guilty. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion 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 reasons 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

PER CURIAM

*677Melford Newlon appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Newlon claims that the motion court clearly erred because his convictions on nine counts of the class C felony of stealing and his nine concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), and counsel therefore gave ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to dismiss the charges and by advising him to plead guilty. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion 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 reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newlon-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack