Palmer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Palmer v. State

501 S.W.3d 910, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2016 WL 6465535

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2016

DocketNo. ED103613

StatusPublished

This text of 501 S.W.3d 910 (Palmer 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

Palmer v. State, 501 S.W.3d 910, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2016 WL 6465535 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvis Palmer (Defendant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion alleging there was an insufficient factual basis for the court to accept his plea of guilty to assault in the first degree and sexual assault. We have reviewed thé briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion was not clearly erroneous. Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Mo. banc 2000); Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons [911]*911for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvis Palmer (Defendant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion alleging there was an insufficient factual basis for the court to accept his plea of guilty to assault in the first degree and sexual assault. We have reviewed thé briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion was not clearly erroneous. Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Mo. banc 2000); Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons [911]*911for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment of the motion court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 S.W.3d 910, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1099, 2016 WL 6465535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-state-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack