Washington v. State

304 S.W.3d 294, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 238
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Washington v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 300 S.W.3d 241
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 2010·No. No. ED 92813·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Pedro Washington (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims his plea counsel was ineffective because he induced Movant’s guilty plea by misrepresenting the maximum sentence for the charged offenses.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Washington v. State, 304 S.W.3d 294, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 238 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

304 S.W.3d 294 (Washington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.