Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Daryl Diemer, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daryl-diemer-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-19412
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=19412
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Daryl+Diemer%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: sentence)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  Daryl Diemer, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 53796
Handdown Date:  09/16/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. K. Preston Dean II
Counsel for Appellant:  Andrew Allen Schroeder
Counsel for Respondent:  John Munson Morris
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Smart, P.J., Lowenstein and Stith, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Appellant pled guilty to one count each of attempted stealing, tampering in the first degree, and stealing property 
valued over one hundred fifty dollars.  He filed this Rule 24.035 motion alleging his plea counsel was ineffective for not 
informing him he was required to serve eighty percent of his sentence, and that the motion court failed to advise him of 
the parole implications of the plea.
Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.