Nutall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nutall v. State

194 S.W.3d 925, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1040, 2006 WL 1827487

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 5, 2006·No. No. ED 85839·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Willie Nutall, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that during his plea hearing the court failed to comply with Rule 24.02.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Willie Nutall, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that during his plea hearing the court failed to comply with Rule 24.02.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Nutall v. State, 194 S.W.3d 925, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1040, 2006 WL 1827487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

194 S.W.3d 925 (Nutall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.