Smith v. State

184 S.W.3d 596, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, 2006 WL 462387
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1558
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 28, 2006·No. No. ED 86161·Published

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

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

184 S.W.3d 596 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.