Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

306 S.W.3d 711, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2010 WL 1608679

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Young v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1615 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 6, 2010·No. WD 71069·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert Young appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Young claims that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because counsel advised him that he would likely receive probation. He contends that but for this advice he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert Young appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Young claims that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because counsel advised him that he would likely receive probation. He contends that but for this advice he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Young v. State, 306 S.W.3d 711, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2010 WL 1608679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

306 S.W.3d 711 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.