Starks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Starks v. State

275 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 48, 2009 WL 215343

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

DocketED 90703

StatusPublished

This text of 275 S.W.3d 370 (Starks 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

Starks v. State, 275 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 48, 2009 WL 215343 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Starks (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues, after an evidentiary hearing on this issue, the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his testimony was credible and his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Movant before trial of the State’s pre-trial plea offer. Second, Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion because his counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor in closing argued that Movant wanted a “slap on the wrist” for what he had done.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Starks (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues, after an evidentiary hearing on this issue, the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his testimony was credible and his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Movant before trial of the State’s pre-trial plea offer. Second, Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion because his counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor in closing argued that Movant wanted a “slap on the wrist” for what he had done.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 48, 2009 WL 215343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starks-v-state-moctapp-2009.