Ward v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ward v. State

226 S.W.3d 233, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 866, 2007 WL 1673683

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ward v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 777 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2007·No. No. ED 88380·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Phillip Ward, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because his counsel misinformed him regarding the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties [234]*234have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Phillip Ward, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because his counsel misinformed him regarding the sentence he would receive.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties [234]*234have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Ward v. State, 226 S.W.3d 233, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 866, 2007 WL 1673683 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

226 S.W.3d 233 (Ward v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.