Case Name: Larry HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-09-19
Citations: 202 S.W.3d 714
Docket Number: No. ED 86841
Parties: Larry HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
Larry HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 86841.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Sept. 19, 2006.
Jessica M. Hathaway, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. Bartholomew, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Larry Hemphill ("movant") appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the court clearly erred in denying his motion because his guilty plea to one count of the class C felony of stealing was not supported by a factual basis. He also claims that because the plea was not supported by a factual basis, plea counsel was ineffective for advising movant to plead guilty.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).