Sutton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sutton v. State

182 S.W.3d 715, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, 2006 WL 163131

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 24, 2006·No. ED 86186·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donnie W. Sutton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to inform him prior to his guilty plea that the plea agreement required him to plead guilty to armed criminal action.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donnie W. Sutton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues his counsel was ineffective in failing to inform him prior to his guilty plea that the plea agreement required him to plead guilty to armed criminal action.

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).

Sutton v. State, 182 S.W.3d 715, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, 2006 WL 163131 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

182 S.W.3d 715 (Sutton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related