State v. Buckholz

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Buckholz

505 S.W.3d 298, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1277, 2016 WL 7209819

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2016

DocketWD 79116

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 298 (State v. Buckholz) 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

State v. Buckholz, 505 S.W.3d 298, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1277, 2016 WL 7209819 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Kenneth Buekholz (“Buekholz”) appeals the trial court’s decision to deny his 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Buekholz argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an aggravated offender under Section 577.023 RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2000 because the State failed to establish the required prior convictions. In the alternative, the State argues that the plea court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty [299]*299plea because the record supports the defendant’s conviction as an aggravated offender. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Kenneth Buekholz (“Buekholz”) appeals the trial court’s decision to deny his 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Buekholz argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him as an aggravated offender under Section 577.023 RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2000 because the State failed to establish the required prior convictions. In the alternative, the State argues that the plea court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty [299]*299plea because the record supports the defendant’s conviction as an aggravated offender. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 298, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1277, 2016 WL 7209819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckholz-moctapp-2016.