Prell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Prell v. State

205 S.W.3d 325, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1701, 2006 WL 3300387

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 14, 2006·No. No. WD 65479·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 29.15. Appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the charges of furnishing pornography to a minor and supplying liquor to a minor when he had already been charged with endangering the welfare of a child. He also claims that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to relay the prosecution’s offer for a plea bargain, which he would have accepted.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 29.15. Appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the charges of furnishing pornography to a minor and supplying liquor to a minor when he had already been charged with endangering the welfare of a child. He also claims that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to relay the prosecution’s offer for a plea bargain, which he would have accepted.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Prell v. State, 205 S.W.3d 325, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1701, 2006 WL 3300387 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

205 S.W.3d 325 (Prell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.