Smith v. State

46 S.W.3d 659, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 954, 2001 WL 605086
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1488
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 2001·No. No. ED 78843·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Steven Smith, pleaded guilty to one count of felony stealing in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo (2000). and one count of second degree burglary in violation of Section 569.170 RSMo (2000). He appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He contends he did not enter his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily because his plea attorney provided ineffective assistance. We affirm.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Smith v. State, 46 S.W.3d 659, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 954, 2001 WL 605086 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

46 S.W.3d 659 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.