MOORE v. STATE (2023)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Preston MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 85129

Decided: March 07, 2023

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Brody Sabor, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Karen L. Kramer and Evan J. Buchheim, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Order

Preston Moore appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 24.035 ¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Moore raises two points on appeal. In his first point, Moore argues that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because his plea was involuntary as a result of plea counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to advise Moore of a causation-based defense to two counts of felony murder (which were dismissed as part of the plea agreement). In his second point, Moore argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because his plea was involuntary due to plea counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to advise Moore that a double-jeopardy defense could have been asserted against one of two driving while intoxicated counts. Finding no merit in Moore's arguments, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1. All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018).

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Out of date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