Case ID: sw3d_387/html/0411-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maverick BLUFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 98272.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Dec. 11, 2012.
    Deborah B. Wafer, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Todd T. Smith, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and ROY L. RICHTER and ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maverick Bluford (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising him that if he pleaded guilty to the burglary and stealing charges, he would receive probation.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).