Walker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

193 S.W.3d 794, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 810, 2006 WL 1604452

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86784

StatusPublished

This text of 193 S.W.3d 794 (Walker 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

Walker v. State, 193 S.W.3d 794, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 810, 2006 WL 1604452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerald K. Walker (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 on the merits without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant claims the court clearly erred in denying his motion because his guilty plea was involuntarily entered.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[795]*795The judgment of the trial court 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.

Gerald K. Walker (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 on the merits without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant claims the court clearly erred in denying his motion because his guilty plea was involuntarily entered.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[795]*795The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.W.3d 794, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 810, 2006 WL 1604452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-moctapp-2006.