White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

73 S.W.3d 880, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 908, 2002 WL 768702

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80174

StatusPublished

This text of 73 S.W.3d 880 (White 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

White v. State, 73 S.W.3d 880, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 908, 2002 WL 768702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John White (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred because he pleaded facts that would support his contention that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to explain that he had the defense option of submitting lesser included offenses to the charge of first degree murder prior to his plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John White (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred because he pleaded facts that would support his contention that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to explain that he had the defense option of submitting lesser included offenses to the charge of first degree murder prior to his plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.W.3d 880, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 908, 2002 WL 768702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2002.