From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tindall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan 21, 2020
591 S.W.3d 927 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

WD 82125

01-21-2020

Monta K. TINDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Damien de Loyola, District Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.


Damien de Loyola, District Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

Order

Per Curiam:

Mr. Monta Tindall appeals from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Tindall claims that the sentence of imprisonment for his stealing conviction was in excess of the maximum allowed by law and that his guilty plea for stealing was based on an insufficient factual basis and was thus unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Tindall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan 21, 2020
591 S.W.3d 927 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)
Case details for

Tindall v. State

Case Details

Full title:Monta K. TINDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Jan 21, 2020

Citations

591 S.W.3d 927 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)