Sadler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sadler v. State

4 S.W.3d 602, 1999 WL 809737

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

DocketNo. ED 75065

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.W.3d 602 (Sadler 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

Sadler v. State, 4 S.W.3d 602, 1999 WL 809737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Christopher Sadler, appeals from denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. In a previous appeal we remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether his guilty pleas were voluntary and whether movant had the benefit of effective assistance of counsel. Sadler v. State, 965 S.W.2d 389 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We held the plea court failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 24.02.

We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties. The findings of the trial court and the amended order and judgment are supported by the evidence, particularly by movant’s testimony. Thus, they are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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