Adams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 25, 2009

DocketED 91754

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 S.W.3d 370 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 370, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2009 WL 2707574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack