Trammell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Trammell v. State

301 S.W.3d 601, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2010 WL 354936

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

DocketWD 70660

StatusPublished

This text of 301 S.W.3d 601 (Trammell 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

Trammell v. State, 301 S.W.3d 601, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2010 WL 354936 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

David Trammell appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court’s (motion court) denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he presents one point in which he claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing because, in his motion, he claims to have alleged facts which were not refuted by the record, establishing that his counsel incorrectly informed him that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole would credit the time he served in the Kansas Department of Corrections on unrelated charges from the State of Kansas. Because the record *602 from the plea and sentencing hearing reflects otherwise, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

David Trammell appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court’s (motion court) denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he presents one point in which he claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing because, in his motion, he claims to have alleged facts which were not refuted by the record, establishing that his counsel incorrectly informed him that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole would credit the time he served in the Kansas Department of Corrections on unrelated charges from the State of Kansas. Because the record *602 from the plea and sentencing hearing reflects otherwise, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.3d 601, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2010 WL 354936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trammell-v-state-moctapp-2010.