White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

461 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2015 WL 2227693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101766

StatusPublished

This text of 461 S.W.3d 848 (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, 461 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2015 WL 2227693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Michelle White (Movant) appeals the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying her post-conviction motion because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) advise her regarding a potential defense to first-degree robbery; (2) challenge the factual basis of her plea; and (3) properly advise her regarding sentencing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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

Michelle White (Movant) appeals the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying her post-conviction motion because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) advise her regarding a potential defense to first-degree robbery; (2) challenge the factual basis of her plea; and (3) properly advise her regarding sentencing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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)

461 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2015 WL 2227693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2015.