Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

184 S.W.3d 596, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2006 WL 462387

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86161

StatusPublished

This text of 184 S.W.3d 596 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 184 S.W.3d 596, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2006 WL 462387 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Phillip K. Smith, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because his counsel erroneously promised him that if he entered his pleas he would receive long-term drug treatment.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Phillip K. Smith, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because his counsel erroneously promised him that if he entered his pleas he would receive long-term drug treatment.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.W.3d 596, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2006 WL 462387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2006.