Rush v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rush v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102593

StatusPublished

This text of 489 S.W.3d 847 (Rush 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 S.W.3d 847, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 253, 2016 WL 1110387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-v-state-moctapp-2016.