From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardene v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
May 9, 2006
191 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. ED 86567.

May 9, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Ted C. House, Judge.

Lisa M. Stroup, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Roger Johnson, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before NANNETTE A. BAKER, P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, JJ.


ORDER


Jerome Hardene ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying the motion because he established by a preponderance of evidence that his plea counsel was ineffective for allowing Movant to plead guilty while he was under the influence of Vicodin, a narcotic analgesic drug, thereby rendering his plea involuntary

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Hardene v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
May 9, 2006
191 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

Hardene v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jerome HARDENE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

Date published: May 9, 2006

Citations

191 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Hardene v. Nixon

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Petitioner's post-conviction motion. Hardene v. State,…