Whitney v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Whitney v. State

534 S.W.3d 924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105366

StatusPublished

This text of 534 S.W.3d 924 (Whitney 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

Whitney v. State, 534 S.W.3d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

■ Michael Whitney (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues in his sole point on appeal that the motion court erred in denying the motion because, he received ineffective assistance from his plea counsel when counsel promised that Movant would receive long-term treatment, and probation if he pleaded guilty. Specifically, Movant alleges his plea was involuntary because, absent his plea counsel’s promise, he would have taken the case to trial. We affirm the judgment of the motion court,

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

■ Michael Whitney (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues in his sole point on appeal that the motion court erred in denying the motion because, he received ineffective assistance from his plea counsel when counsel promised that Movant would receive long-term treatment, and probation if he pleaded guilty. Specifically, Movant alleges his plea was involuntary because, absent his plea counsel’s promise, he would have taken the case to trial. We affirm the judgment of the motion court,

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.3d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-state-moctapp-2017.