Shafer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shafer v. State

235 S.W.3d 45, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1170, 2007 WL 2363494

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 21, 2007

DocketED 88032

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 S.W.3d 45 (Shafer 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

Shafer v. State, 235 S.W.3d 45, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1170, 2007 WL 2363494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Shafer (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court dismissing his requests for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without evidentiary hearing, and for dismissing a remaining claim after eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court clearly erred in denying post-conviction relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel on several grounds. Movant also argues that the trial court erroneously accepted his plea without a proper inquiry as to the voluntariness of the plea.

*46 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Shafer (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court dismissing his requests for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without evidentiary hearing, and for dismissing a remaining claim after eviden-tiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court clearly erred in denying post-conviction relief because he was denied effective assistance of counsel on several grounds. Movant also argues that the trial court erroneously accepted his plea without a proper inquiry as to the voluntariness of the plea.

*46 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 S.W.3d 45, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1170, 2007 WL 2363494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shafer-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack