Schafer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schafer v. State

306 S.W.3d 210, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 389, 2010 WL 1208914

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 2010

DocketWD 70514

StatusPublished

This text of 306 S.W.3d 210 (Schafer 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

Schafer v. State, 306 S.W.3d 210, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 389, 2010 WL 1208914 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*211 Order

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Dean Schafer (“Schafer”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Schafer’s motion challenged his guilty plea to two counts of forgery. On appeal, Schafer claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the need for handwriting analysis to prove that a Lynn Huffman wrote the checks Schafer pled guilty to passing and that the motion court judge erred in failing to recuse himself sua sponte from hearing evidence on Schafer’s motion.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*211 Order

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Dean Schafer (“Schafer”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Schafer’s motion challenged his guilty plea to two counts of forgery. On appeal, Schafer claims that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the need for handwriting analysis to prove that a Lynn Huffman wrote the checks Schafer pled guilty to passing and that the motion court judge erred in failing to recuse himself sua sponte from hearing evidence on Schafer’s motion.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 S.W.3d 210, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 389, 2010 WL 1208914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schafer-v-state-moctapp-2010.