Younger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Younger v. State

378 S.W.3d 386, 2012 WL 3956599, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1116

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 11, 2012·No. No. ED 97680·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Younger (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant contends that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel because they misinformed the trial court about Movant’s parole eligibility resulting in the trial court rendering an increased sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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.

Jeffrey Younger (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant contends that his attorneys provided ineffective assistance of counsel because they misinformed the trial court about Movant’s parole eligibility resulting in the trial court rendering an increased sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Younger v. State, 378 S.W.3d 386, 2012 WL 3956599, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1116 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

378 S.W.3d 386 (Younger v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.