Sadler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sadler v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 1999·No. No. ED 75065·Published

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

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).

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

Pincite

4 S.W.3d 602 (Sadler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related