Winston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Winston v. State

303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, 2010 WL 528141

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 93164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 165 (Winston 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

Winston v. State, 303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, 2010 WL 528141 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donzell Winston (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends his plea coun *166 sel was ineffective for telling him he would receive time credit for eight months of pre-trial incarceration when he did not receive credit for the pre-trial incarceration.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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.

Donzell Winston (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends his plea coun *166 sel was ineffective for telling him he would receive time credit for eight months of pre-trial incarceration when he did not receive credit for the pre-trial incarceration.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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)

303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, 2010 WL 528141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack