White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

436 S.W.3d 239, 2013 WL 1966209, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 580

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98636

StatusPublished

This text of 436 S.W.3d 239 (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, 436 S.W.3d 239, 2013 WL 1966209, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian White (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying without an evidentiary hearing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) advising Movant that, if he pleaded guilty, the motion court would sentence him to no longer than seventeen years’ imprisonment; and (2) failing to advocate for a more favorable sentencing disposition.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian White (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying without an evidentiary hearing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by: (1) advising Movant that, if he pleaded guilty, the motion court would sentence him to no longer than seventeen years’ imprisonment; and (2) failing to advocate for a more favorable sentencing disposition.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 S.W.3d 239, 2013 WL 1966209, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2013.