Allen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Allen v. State

559 S.W.3d 423

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106125

StatusPublished

This text of 559 S.W.3d 423 (Allen 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

Allen v. State, 559 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Ronald L. Allen ("Allen") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Allen argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress drug evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that lacked probable cause. Because the record reflects that probable cause supported the search warrant, a motion to suppress would have been meritless. We will not hold trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion, and therefore Allen is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error 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

PER CURIAM

Ronald L. Allen ("Allen") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Allen argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress drug evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that lacked probable cause. Because the record reflects that probable cause supported the search warrant, a motion to suppress would have been meritless. We will not hold trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion, and therefore Allen is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error 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)

559 S.W.3d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-moctapp-2018.