Ross v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ross v. State

332 S.W.3d 858, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1337, 2010 WL 3852002

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 5, 2010·No. WD 70659·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Steven E. Ross appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Jackson County (“motion court”). In his sole point on appeal, Ross argues that the motion court erred in overruling his Rule 24.035 motion because his attorney representing him at the time of his plea erroneously advised him as to the sentence he would receive under the plea agreement and this constituted ineffective assistance of counsel that resulted in his guilty plea being involuntary. We affirm in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a memorandum explaining our ruling today. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM:

Steven E. Ross appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Jackson County (“motion court”). In his sole point on appeal, Ross argues that the motion court erred in overruling his Rule 24.035 motion because his attorney representing him at the time of his plea erroneously advised him as to the sentence he would receive under the plea agreement and this constituted ineffective assistance of counsel that resulted in his guilty plea being involuntary. We affirm in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a memorandum explaining our ruling today. Rule 84.16(b).

Ross v. State, 332 S.W.3d 858, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1337, 2010 WL 3852002 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

332 S.W.3d 858 (Ross v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.