Word v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Word v. State

272 S.W.3d 488, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1710, 2008 WL 5454128

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 2008

DocketED 90814

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 S.W.3d 488 (Word 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

Word v. State, 272 S.W.3d 488, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1710, 2008 WL 5454128 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Dexter Word, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his pleas were not voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Dexter Word, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his pleas were not voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.W.3d 488, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1710, 2008 WL 5454128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/word-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack