Saxton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Saxton v. State

293 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2009 WL 3170462

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2009

DocketWD 69524

StatusPublished

This text of 293 S.W.3d 485 (Saxton 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

Saxton v. State, 293 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2009 WL 3170462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Eric Saxton appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035 after an evidentiary hearing. Saxton pled guilty to domestic assault in the second degree, § 565.073, RSMo 2000. He now claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to pleading guilty, because his attorney failed to move to dismiss the criminal charges against him based on violation of his right to a speedy trial, and failed to advise him that, by pleading guilty, he would waive his speedy trial claim. Saxton contends that, as a result of these deficiencies, his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Eric Saxton appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035 after an evidentiary hearing. Saxton pled guilty to domestic assault in the second degree, § 565.073, RSMo 2000. He now claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel prior to pleading guilty, because his attorney failed to move to dismiss the criminal charges against him based on violation of his right to a speedy trial, and failed to advise him that, by pleading guilty, he would waive his speedy trial claim. Saxton contends that, as a result of these deficiencies, his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2009 WL 3170462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack