Pepper v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pepper v. State

211 S.W.3d 185, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 57, 2007 WL 90948

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

DocketWD 66534

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.W.3d 185 (Pepper 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

Pepper v. State, 211 S.W.3d 185, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 57, 2007 WL 90948 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dana Pepper appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He sought to vacate his conviction and ten-year sentence for sale of a controlled substance near schools, section 195.214, RSMo 2000. Mr. Pepper claims on appeal that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he was not afforded the benefit of an agreement that he reasonably believed he had with the prosecutor. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dana Pepper appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. He sought to vacate his conviction and ten-year sentence for sale of a controlled substance near schools, section 195.214, RSMo 2000. Mr. Pepper claims on appeal that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because he was not afforded the benefit of an agreement that he reasonably believed he had with the prosecutor. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 185, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 57, 2007 WL 90948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pepper-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack