Aldridge v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Aldridge v. State

190 S.W.3d 520, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 532, 2006 WL 1071989

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 2006

DocketED 86389

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 520 (Aldridge 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

Aldridge v. State, 190 S.W.3d 520, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 532, 2006 WL 1071989 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

George F. Aldridge (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits after an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court was clearly erroneous because the trial court was without jurisdiction with respect to one count, and movant’s trial counsel and post-conviction counsel was ineffective.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no eiTor of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

George F. Aldridge (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits after an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court was clearly erroneous because the trial court was without jurisdiction with respect to one count, and movant’s trial counsel and post-conviction counsel was ineffective.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no eiTor of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 520, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 532, 2006 WL 1071989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aldridge-v-state-moctapp-2006.