Wiglesworth v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wiglesworth v. State

356 S.W.3d 808, 2012 WL 5634, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 4

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 3, 2012

DocketWD 73498

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 808 (Wiglesworth 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

Wiglesworth v. State, 356 S.W.3d 808, 2012 WL 5634, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

David Wiglesworth appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate his guilty plea, following an evidentiary hearing. Wiglesworth contends his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he claims to have reasonably believed his attorney had abandoned representation. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

David Wiglesworth appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion to vacate his guilty plea, following an evidentiary hearing. Wiglesworth contends his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he claims to have reasonably believed his attorney had abandoned representation. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 808, 2012 WL 5634, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiglesworth-v-state-moctapp-2012.