Pollard v. State

402 S.W.3d 612, 2013 WL 3328902, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 809
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 28, 2013·No. No. ED 98918·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Pollard (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant asserts that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to explain the consequences of entering an Alford1 plea. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for [613] the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Footnotes

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

Pollard v. State, 402 S.W.3d 612, 2013 WL 3328902, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

402 S.W.3d 612 (Pollard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

North Carolina v. Alford
400 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1970)