Parker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Parker v. State

339 S.W.3d 522, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2011 WL 1519655

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2011

DocketED 94678

StatusPublished

This text of 339 S.W.3d 522 (Parker 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

Parker v. State, 339 S.W.3d 522, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2011 WL 1519655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lamont Parker (Parker) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Following his plea of guilty and sentencing, Parker filed a motion for post-conviction relief seeking to set aside his plea because his plea counsel (Plea Counsel) was ineffective for failing to request the court sentence Parker to a long-term drug treatment program. Finding that because Parker was not concerned with being eligible for probation, but only wished to avail himself to the benefits of the long-term drug treatment program while incarcerated, the motion court ruled that Parker’s claim was not cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding because he did not challenge his conviction or sentence. We find no clear error in the motion court’s ruling and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for *523 this order affirming the 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.

Lamont Parker (Parker) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Following his plea of guilty and sentencing, Parker filed a motion for post-conviction relief seeking to set aside his plea because his plea counsel (Plea Counsel) was ineffective for failing to request the court sentence Parker to a long-term drug treatment program. Finding that because Parker was not concerned with being eligible for probation, but only wished to avail himself to the benefits of the long-term drug treatment program while incarcerated, the motion court ruled that Parker’s claim was not cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding because he did not challenge his conviction or sentence. We find no clear error in the motion court’s ruling and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for *523 this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.W.3d 522, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 498, 2011 WL 1519655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-state-moctapp-2011.