Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002

Courtney v. State

Courtney v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided April 30, 2002 · Crandall, Crane, Dowd
73 S.W.3d 880; 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 907; 2002 WL 770104 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Courtney v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant David E. Courtney (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without a hearing. Movant asserts his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because it was induced by a promise that he would receive drug treatment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s decision is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.