Waters v. State

292 S.W.3d 602, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2009 WL 3050889
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 22, 2009·No. ED 92003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Waters (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges the motion court erred- in denying her post-conviction motion because there was no factual basis for her guilty plea, and she was not advised by the plea court that robbery in the first degree was a dangerous felony.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We 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.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Waters v. State, 292 S.W.3d 602, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2009 WL 3050889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

292 S.W.3d 602 (Waters v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nutek International, Inc. v. Heaviside
292 S.W.3d 602 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)