RAYBOURN v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

RAYBOURN v. State

283 S.W.3d 304, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2009 WL 1383680

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2009

DocketED 91798

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 S.W.3d 304 (RAYBOURN 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

RAYBOURN v. State, 283 S.W.3d 304, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2009 WL 1383680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Connie Raybourn (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying her motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying her motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing because she alleged facts showing that she was denied her right to change venue, her right against self-incrimination, and her right to effective assistance of counsel, and her right to a fair trial. She claims that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue in a timely manner or to plead sufficient facts for a change of venue, which coerced her into pleading guilty. Movant also asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to suppress her videotaped statement, which coerced her into pleading guilty, and therefore this erroneous ruling made her guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Connie Raybourn (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying her motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying her motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing because she alleged facts showing that she was denied her right to change venue, her right against self-incrimination, and her right to effective assistance of counsel, and her right to a fair trial. She claims that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue in a timely manner or to plead sufficient facts for a change of venue, which coerced her into pleading guilty. Movant also asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to suppress her videotaped statement, which coerced her into pleading guilty, and therefore this erroneous ruling made her guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 304, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 651, 2009 WL 1383680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raybourn-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack