Schafer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schafer v. State

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Schafer v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 626 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 30, 2010·No. WD 70514·Published

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).

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

Pincite

306 S.W.3d 210 (Schafer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.