Payne v. State

163 S.W.3d 516, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 693, 2005 WL 1018195
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 3, 2005·No. ED 84861·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keelan Payne (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his counsel was ineffective, because he promised Movant that if he entered a blind plea he would only receive a seven or eight-year sentence and would also receive drug treatment.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Payne v. State, 163 S.W.3d 516, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 693, 2005 WL 1018195 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

163 S.W.3d 516 (Payne v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Adams v. State
163 S.W.3d 516 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)