Adams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. State

291 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2009 WL 2707574

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 25, 2009·No. ED 91754·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Aaron Adams, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress or objecting to the identifications of him by two witnesses.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Aaron Adams, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress or objecting to the identifications of him by two witnesses.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Adams v. State, 291 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2009 WL 2707574 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

291 S.W.3d 370 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related