Schlueter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schlueter v. State

472 S.W.3d 653, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1068, 2015 WL 6161127

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102348

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 653 (Schlueter 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

Schlueter v. State, 472 S.W.3d 653, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1068, 2015 WL 6161127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Michael Schlueter appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Schlueter raises one point on appeal, asserting that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis in the plea-court record to support his guilty pleas for first-degree child molestation, and thus his guilty pleas were involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Michael Schlueter appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Schlueter raises one point on appeal, asserting that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis in the plea-court record to support his guilty pleas for first-degree child molestation, and thus his guilty pleas were involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.3d 653, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1068, 2015 WL 6161127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlueter-v-state-moctapp-2015.