Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

895 S.W.2d 137, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 1995 WL 34245

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1105 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 31, 1995·No. No. 66328·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, movant pled guilty to first degree robbery and second degree robbery. Although the State recommended concurrent twenty year sentences, [138]*138the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent eighteen year sentences as he suggested.

We have reviewed movant’s allegations, the transcript of his pleas of guilty and sentencing, and the motion court’s findings and conclusions. Those findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). An opinion would have no precedential value.

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, movant pled guilty to first degree robbery and second degree robbery. Although the State recommended concurrent twenty year sentences, [138]*138the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent eighteen year sentences as he suggested.

We have reviewed movant’s allegations, the transcript of his pleas of guilty and sentencing, and the motion court’s findings and conclusions. Those findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). An opinion would have no precedential value.

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Thomas v. State, 895 S.W.2d 137, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 1995 WL 34245 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

895 S.W.2d 137 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.