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

Case: Ernesto D. Montez, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ernesto-d-montez-jr-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-12856
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12856
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=Ernesto+D.+Montez%2C+Jr.%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&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: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Ernesto D. Montez, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  72065
Handdown Date:  02/24/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Jeff Schaeperkoetter
Counsel for Appellant:  David Simpson
Counsel for Respondent:  Jill C. LaHue
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant pled guilty to one count of burglary in the first degree in violation of section 569.160 RSMo 1994. 
Defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of ten years of incarceration.  Following conviction, defendant filed a 
motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035.  Defendant appeals the motion court's denial of his motion and 
his request for a hearing.
The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.  No error of law appears. 
A written opinion would have no precedential value.  However, we have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their 
information only, setting forth our reasoning.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to 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.