Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

398 S.W.3d 94, 2013 WL 1803935, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 512

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98685

StatusPublished

This text of 398 S.W.3d 94 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 398 S.W.3d 94, 2013 WL 1803935, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Evan Wilson (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate: (1) a witness, Antonio Duncan, and (2) a statement made by the KFC manager. Movant alleges these failures were unreasonable and prejudiced him by coercing his unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Evan Wilson (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate: (1) a witness, Antonio Duncan, and (2) a statement made by the KFC manager. Movant alleges these failures were unreasonable and prejudiced him by coercing his unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 S.W.3d 94, 2013 WL 1803935, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-moctapp-2013.