Plummer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Plummer v. State

309 S.W.3d 874, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2010 WL 1860631

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

DocketED 93394

StatusPublished

This text of 309 S.W.3d 874 (Plummer 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

Plummer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 874, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2010 WL 1860631 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Plummer (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his first point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred when it declined to find plea *875 counsel ineffective for failing to explain the difference between a civil nonsupport proceeding and a criminal nonsupport proceeding, rendering his plea involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent. In his second point on appeal, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred when it declined to find probation revocation counsel ineffective for failing to advocate on his behalf.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Hartman v. State, 130 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion 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.

Jerry Plummer (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his first point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred when it declined to find plea *875 counsel ineffective for failing to explain the difference between a civil nonsupport proceeding and a criminal nonsupport proceeding, rendering his plea involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent. In his second point on appeal, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred when it declined to find probation revocation counsel ineffective for failing to advocate on his behalf.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Hartman v. State, 130 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.3d 874, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2010 WL 1860631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack