State v. Mims

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mims

165 S.W.3d 220, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 903, 2005 WL 1432282

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85157

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.W.3d 220 (State v. Mims) 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. Mims, 165 S.W.3d 220, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 903, 2005 WL 1432282 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demetrius Mims (Defendant) appeals from a judgment denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Rule 29.07(d).¹ Defendant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept his plea because no amended information was filed. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the denial of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not clearly erroneous. Sharp v. State, 908 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for [221]*221their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demetrius Mims (Defendant) appeals from a judgment denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Rule 29.07(d).¹ Defendant argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept his plea because no amended information was filed. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the denial of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not clearly erroneous. Sharp v. State, 908 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for [221]*221their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W.3d 220, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 903, 2005 WL 1432282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mims-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack