Thomure v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomure v. State

277 S.W.3d 887, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 208, 2009 WL 595920

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 10, 2009·No. ED 90713·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Nicholas Thomure, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misinforming him about his parole eligibility.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Thé 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, Nicholas Thomure, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misinforming him about his parole eligibility.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Thé 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).

Thomure v. State, 277 S.W.3d 887, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 208, 2009 WL 595920 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

277 S.W.3d 887 (Thomure v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related