Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

979 S.W.2d 937, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2019, 1998 WL 804595

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 1998

DocketNo. 73829

StatusPublished

This text of 979 S.W.2d 937 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 979 S.W.2d 937, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2019, 1998 WL 804595 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Wright entered a guilty plea to one count of second degree robbery in violation of Section 569.030 RSMo 1994. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment pursuant to the plea agreement. Wright appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Wright argues that his counsel was ineffective and rendered his plea involuntary by not investigating physical evidence or preparing to present witnesses in Wright’s defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and we find that the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). The record refutes Wright’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Eberspacher v. State, [938]*938915 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Wright entered a guilty plea to one count of second degree robbery in violation of Section 569.030 RSMo 1994. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment pursuant to the plea agreement. Wright appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Wright argues that his counsel was ineffective and rendered his plea involuntary by not investigating physical evidence or preparing to present witnesses in Wright’s defense.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and we find that the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). The record refutes Wright’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Eberspacher v. State, [938]*938915 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

979 S.W.2d 937, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2019, 1998 WL 804595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack