Richmond v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Richmond v. State

273 S.W.3d 54, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1439, 2008 WL 4621031

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketWD 69010

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 54 (Richmond 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

Richmond v. State, 273 S.W.3d 54, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1439, 2008 WL 4621031 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*55 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darnell Richmond appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief. After pleading guilty to assault in the second degree, § 565.060, RSMo 2000, Appellant was sentenced in Clay County Circuit Court to five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant now claims that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea, and that therefore his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Appellant further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney improperly assured him that he would likely receive probation in exchange for his plea of guilty.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*55 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Darnell Richmond appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief. After pleading guilty to assault in the second degree, § 565.060, RSMo 2000, Appellant was sentenced in Clay County Circuit Court to five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant now claims that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea, and that therefore his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Appellant further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney improperly assured him that he would likely receive probation in exchange for his plea of guilty.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 54, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1439, 2008 WL 4621031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richmond-v-state-moctapp-2008.