SHURTZ v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

SHURTZ v. State

359 S.W.3d 96, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1398, 2011 WL 5041307

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

DocketWD 72451

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 96 (SHURTZ 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

SHURTZ v. State, 359 S.W.3d 96, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1398, 2011 WL 5041307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 96, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1398, 2011 WL 5041307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shurtz-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack