Twitty v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Twitty v. State

298 S.W.3d 594, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 2009 WL 4639897

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

DocketED 92308

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 298 S.W.3d 594 (Twitty 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

Twitty v. State, 298 S.W.3d 594, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 2009 WL 4639897 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Twitty (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he established his plea counsel was ineffective for guaranteeing that Mov-ant would get probation in exchange for a blind Alford plea and for threatening Mov-ant with substantial time if he went to trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Twitty (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he established his plea counsel was ineffective for guaranteeing that Mov-ant would get probation in exchange for a blind Alford plea and for threatening Mov-ant with substantial time if he went to trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 S.W.3d 594, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 2009 WL 4639897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twitty-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack