Rush v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rush v. State

489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 253, 2016 WL 1110387

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 22, 2016·No. No. ED 102593·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demeatrius Rush appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing, claiming that his counsel was ineffective for misinforming him about the parole consequences of his plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demeatrius Rush appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing, claiming that his counsel was ineffective for misinforming him about the parole consequences of his plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Rush v. State, 489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 253, 2016 WL 1110387 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

489 S.W.3d 847 (Rush v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.