Weaver v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Weaver v. State

172 S.W.3d 871, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 2005 WL 2076725

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2005

DocketED 84974

StatusPublished

This text of 172 S.W.3d 871 (Weaver 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

Weaver v. State, 172 S.W.3d 871, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 2005 WL 2076725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery Weaver (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion in that his counsel failed to advise him that he would waive his claim under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 et seq RSMo (2000), by pleading guilty, and his counsel failed to file an extraordinary writ following the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss charges based up the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 et seq. RSMo (2000). We affirm.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment of the motion court is supported by the evidence and thus, not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The 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.

Jeffery Weaver (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion in that his counsel failed to advise him that he would waive his claim under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 et seq RSMo (2000), by pleading guilty, and his counsel failed to file an extraordinary writ following the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss charges based up the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 et seq. RSMo (2000). We affirm.

We reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment of the motion court is supported by the evidence and thus, not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.W.3d 871, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 2005 WL 2076725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack