Recar v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Recar v. State

544 S.W.3d 685

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105730

StatusPublished

This text of 544 S.W.3d 685 (Recar 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

Recar v. State, 544 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kevin D. Recar ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea of trafficking methamphetamine in the second degree. We have reviewed the briefs *686of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

PER CURIAM.

Kevin D. Recar ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea of trafficking methamphetamine in the second degree. We have reviewed the briefs *686of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 S.W.3d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/recar-v-state-moctapp-2018.