State v. Elder

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Elder

513 S.W.3d 358, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308, 2016 WL 7387629

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2016·No. No. ED 103876·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Aaron Elder appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to correct an alleged manifest injustice pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). Elder claimed that his attorney misinformed him that he did not have to register as a sex offender as a result of his 2010 guilty plea and failed to inform him altogether of the sex offender registration requirements, thereby making his plea involuntary and unknowing. The trial court denied Elder’s motion. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Aaron Elder appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to correct an alleged manifest injustice pursuant to Rule 29.07(d). Elder claimed that his attorney misinformed him that he did not have to register as a sex offender as a result of his 2010 guilty plea and failed to inform him altogether of the sex offender registration requirements, thereby making his plea involuntary and unknowing. The trial court denied Elder’s motion. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Elder, 513 S.W.3d 358, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308, 2016 WL 7387629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

513 S.W.3d 358 (State v. Elder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.