Adams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. State

518 S.W.3d 282, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 425, 2017 WL 2118545

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104861

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 282 (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, 518 S.W.3d 282, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 425, 2017 WL 2118545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Louis J. Adams (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment” (“Judgment”) denying Movant’s “Amended Motion to Correct Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing,” which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurispru[283]*283dential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Louis J. Adams (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment” (“Judgment”) denying Movant’s “Amended Motion to Correct Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing,” which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurispru[283]*283dential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 282, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 425, 2017 WL 2118545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-moctapp-2017.