Pitts v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pitts v. State

213 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2006 WL 3592566

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

DocketED 87175

StatusPublished

This text of 213 S.W.3d 124 (Pitts 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

Pitts v. State, 213 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2006 WL 3592566 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Randy Pitts (“Movant”) appeals from the decision of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. 1 Movant raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion in that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him that he was eligible for long-term drug treatment if he pleaded guilty when he was not eligible. Second, Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion in that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain and present to the court Movant’s medical records.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Randy Pitts (“Movant”) appeals from the decision of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. 1 Movant raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion in that his plea counsel was ineffective for advising him that he was eligible for long-term drug treatment if he pleaded guilty when he was not eligible. Second, Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion in that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain and present to the court Movant’s medical records.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.3d 124, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2006 WL 3592566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitts-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack