O'NEAL v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'NEAL v. State

364 S.W.3d 263, 2012 WL 1243080, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 466

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2012

DocketED 96970

StatusPublished

This text of 364 S.W.3d 263 (O'NEAL 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

O'NEAL v. State, 364 S.W.3d 263, 2012 WL 1243080, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arion O’Neal Jr. appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment denying his Rule 24.035 Second Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for an Eviden-tiary hearing, alleging that the plea court abused its discretion in denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea because his plea was entered involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment 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.

Arion O’Neal Jr. appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment denying his Rule 24.035 Second Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for an Eviden-tiary hearing, alleging that the plea court abused its discretion in denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea because his plea was entered involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 263, 2012 WL 1243080, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack