SHURTZ v. State
359 S.W.3d 96, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1398, 2011 WL 5041307
Opinion
ORDER
Warren Shurtz appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. Shurtz contends that the motion court erred because his guilty plea was rendered unknowing and involuntary by the ineffectiveness of his plea counsel in that a reasonably competent attorney would have moved for a change of venue in light of pre-trial publicity about Shurtz’s charged crime, and had counsel done so, Shurtz would not have plead guilty but would have insisted on a jury trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
SHURTZ v. State, 359 S.W.3d 96, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1398, 2011 WL 5041307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
359 S.W.3d 96 (SHURTZ v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bradford v. Division of Employment Security
359 S.W.3d 96 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)