Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010

TORACK v. State

TORACK v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided April 13, 2010 · Norton, Hoff, Mooney
307 S.W.3d 711; 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 457; 2010 WL 1459970 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

TORACK v. State

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James W. Torack appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (PCR Motion), alleging he received ineffective assistance from his plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s denial of the PCR Motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the *712 judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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