Rayburn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rayburn v. State

354 S.W.3d 673, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1701, 2011 WL 6637420

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

DocketED 96450

StatusPublished

This text of 354 S.W.3d 673 (Rayburn 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

Rayburn v. State, 354 S.W.3d 673, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1701, 2011 WL 6637420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Rayburn (Appellant) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Richard C. Bresna-han presiding. Appellant entered a blind guilty plea to four counts of the Class D felony of unlawful merchandising practices in violation of Section 408.020 for selling residential contracting services, misrepresenting that he would complete specified contracting services and then failing to complete the contracting services. The court accepted Appellant’s plea and sentenced him to four concurrent terms of four years imprisonment.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the Court erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was an insufficient factual basis to support that plea. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal and find no error of law in this case.' Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Rayburn (Appellant) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Richard C. Bresna-han presiding. Appellant entered a blind guilty plea to four counts of the Class D felony of unlawful merchandising practices in violation of Section 408.020 for selling residential contracting services, misrepresenting that he would complete specified contracting services and then failing to complete the contracting services. The court accepted Appellant’s plea and sentenced him to four concurrent terms of four years imprisonment.

On appeal, Appellant argues that the Court erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was an insufficient factual basis to support that plea. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal and find no error of law in this case.' Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 673, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1701, 2011 WL 6637420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rayburn-v-state-moctapp-2011.