Oliver v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Oliver v. State

314 S.W.3d 438, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 2010 WL 2730577

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 13, 2010

DocketWD 71418

StatusPublished

This text of 314 S.W.3d 438 (Oliver 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

Oliver v. State, 314 S.W.3d 438, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 2010 WL 2730577 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Andre Oliver appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Following a guilty plea, Oliver was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for second-degree murder, *439 § 565.021, RSMo, and ten years for second-degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMo, with the sentences to be served concurrently. In his post-conviction relief motion, Oliver contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because he was assured by counsel that he would be sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Andre Oliver appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Following a guilty plea, Oliver was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for second-degree murder, *439 § 565.021, RSMo, and ten years for second-degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMo, with the sentences to be served concurrently. In his post-conviction relief motion, Oliver contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because he was assured by counsel that he would be sentenced to a total of ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 S.W.3d 438, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 949, 2010 WL 2730577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack