Woods v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

241 S.W.3d 835, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 2007 WL 4390487

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

DocketED 89307

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.W.3d 835 (Woods 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

Woods v. State, 241 S.W.3d 835, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 2007 WL 4390487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arthur Woods (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the court erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis for his pleas to the charges of armed criminal action, the plea court failed to personally inform him of the maximum sentence he could receive upon pleading guilty to the charges of armed criminal action, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Arthur Woods (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the court erred in denying his motion because there was no factual basis for his pleas to the charges of armed criminal action, the plea court failed to personally inform him of the maximum sentence he could receive upon pleading guilty to the charges of armed criminal action, and he was denied effective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 835, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 2007 WL 4390487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-state-moctapp-2007.