Roberson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roberson v. State

483 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 243, 2016 WL 1039104

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketWD 78276

StatusPublished

This text of 483 S.W.3d 461 (Roberson 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

Roberson v. State, 483 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 243, 2016 WL 1039104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellant David Roberson (“Roberson”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. Roberson pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to three consecutive sen-[462]*462tenees of seven years imprisonment. The court suspended execution of his sentences and Roberson was placed on probation for five years. Roberson’s probation was subsequently revoked and his sentences were executed. After an evidentiary hearing on Roberson’s claims, the. motion court denied his post-conviction motion that had alleged ineffective assistance of plea counsel and probation counsel and numerous other claims of legal error. For reasons explained more fully in a memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellant David Roberson (“Roberson”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. Roberson pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to three consecutive sen-[462]*462tenees of seven years imprisonment. The court suspended execution of his sentences and Roberson was placed on probation for five years. Roberson’s probation was subsequently revoked and his sentences were executed. After an evidentiary hearing on Roberson’s claims, the. motion court denied his post-conviction motion that had alleged ineffective assistance of plea counsel and probation counsel and numerous other claims of legal error. For reasons explained more fully in a memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 S.W.3d 461, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 243, 2016 WL 1039104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-state-moctapp-2016.