Shields v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shields v. State

524 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 3481031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 780

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 15, 2017

DocketED 104623

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 615 (Shields 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

Shields v. State, 524 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 3481031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Shields (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. Movant contends: (I) the plea court accepted Movant’s plea without .first establishing an adequate factual basis for the underlying crime, (II) his plea was involuntary because of the jail’s failure to provide him his medication, and (III) his Plea Counsel was ineffective in failing to address the medication issue with the court. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is 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.

Paul Shields (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. Movant contends: (I) the plea court accepted Movant’s plea without .first establishing an adequate factual basis for the underlying crime, (II) his plea was involuntary because of the jail’s failure to provide him his medication, and (III) his Plea Counsel was ineffective in failing to address the medication issue with the court. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is 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)

524 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 3481031, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shields-v-state-moctapp-2017.