Pribble v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pribble v. State

340 S.W.3d 274, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2011 WL 1529735

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2011

DocketED 94736

StatusPublished

This text of 340 S.W.3d 274 (Pribble 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

Pribble v. State, 340 S.W.3d 274, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2011 WL 1529735 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Pribble (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred by denying, without a hearing, his claims that: (1) his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that, under the provisions of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 559.115, probation is granted at the sole discretion of the sentencing court; and (2) his guilty pleas on three counts of second-degree statutory sodomy lacked a sufficient factual basis.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Samuel Pribble (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred by denying, without a hearing, his claims that: (1) his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him that, under the provisions of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 559.115, probation is granted at the sole discretion of the sentencing court; and (2) his guilty pleas on three counts of second-degree statutory sodomy lacked a sufficient factual basis.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 274, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 499, 2011 WL 1529735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pribble-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack