Wade v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wade v. State

374 S.W.3d 400, 2012 WL 3663140, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1025

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96989

StatusPublished

This text of 374 S.W.3d 400 (Wade 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

Wade v. State, 374 S.W.3d 400, 2012 WL 3663140, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1025 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robbie Wade appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

In his sole point on appeal, Movant alleges that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate to determine whether Mov-ant had a viable good cause defense to the charged offenses and for advising Movant to plead guilty when there was a good cause defense available. We find no error and affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robbie Wade appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

In his sole point on appeal, Movant alleges that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate to determine whether Mov-ant had a viable good cause defense to the charged offenses and for advising Movant to plead guilty when there was a good cause defense available. We find no error and affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 S.W.3d 400, 2012 WL 3663140, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-state-moctapp-2012.