TINDALL v. STATE (2020)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

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

WD 82125

Decided: January 21, 2020

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

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.

Order

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).

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network