Rodgers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rodgers v. State

382 S.W.3d 918, 2012 WL 5307924

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 30, 2012·No. No. WD 74536·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Darell Rodgers appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Rodgers claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because he established that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary in that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by failing to investigate and prepare a defense. Rodgers claims that had he not been coerced by plea counsel, he would not have pled guilty but would have proceeded to trial. 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:

Darell Rodgers appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Rodgers claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because he established that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary in that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by failing to investigate and prepare a defense. Rodgers claims that had he not been coerced by plea counsel, he would not have pled guilty but would have proceeded to trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Rodgers v. State, 382 S.W.3d 918, 2012 WL 5307924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

382 S.W.3d 918 (Rodgers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.