Thornton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thornton v. State

257 S.W.3d 201, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2008 WL 2907192

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

DocketNo. WD 68214

StatusPublished

This text of 257 S.W.3d 201 (Thornton v. State) 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

Thornton v. State, 257 S.W.3d 201, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2008 WL 2907192 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elvis J. Thornton appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his judgment and sentence under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Thornton drove two individuals to a home with the purpose of burglarizing the home. The two individuals entered the home, committed a robbery, and in the process murdered the occupant of the home. Thornton pled guilty to second-degree, felony murder, and first-degree robbery. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Thornton now appeals claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to grant relief because Thornton’s plea counsel misadvised Thornton concerning the nature of accomplice liability and misled Thornton into believing that he could not obtain private counsel at his own expense. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elvis J. Thornton appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his judgment and sentence under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Thornton drove two individuals to a home with the purpose of burglarizing the home. The two individuals entered the home, committed a robbery, and in the process murdered the occupant of the home. Thornton pled guilty to second-degree, felony murder, and first-degree robbery. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief. Thornton now appeals claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to grant relief because Thornton’s plea counsel misadvised Thornton concerning the nature of accomplice liability and misled Thornton into believing that he could not obtain private counsel at his own expense. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 S.W.3d 201, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2008 WL 2907192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-state-moctapp-2008.