Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watson v. State

92 S.W.3d 158, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2052, 2002 WL 31300684

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 15, 2002·No. No. ED 80987·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Dareck Watson, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea to correct manifest injustice. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s decision is not clearly erroneous under Rule 24.035(k) and there is no error of law. An opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this decision. The judgment 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.

Movant, Dareck Watson, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his guilty plea to correct manifest injustice. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s decision is not clearly erroneous under Rule 24.035(k) and there is no error of law. An opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Watson v. State, 92 S.W.3d 158, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2052, 2002 WL 31300684 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

92 S.W.3d 158 (Watson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.