Wade v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wade v. State

521 S.W.3d 288, 2017 WL 2643988, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 610

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 20, 2017·No. No. ED 104998·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Corey Wade (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. After examining the entire record, we find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous, as the record clearly refutes Movant’s claim that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we [289] have provided' the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Corey Wade (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. After examining the entire record, we find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous, as the record clearly refutes Movant’s claim that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of his plea counsel.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we [289] have provided' the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Wade v. State, 521 S.W.3d 288, 2017 WL 2643988, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 610 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

521 S.W.3d 288 (Wade v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.