Allen v. State

559 S.W.3d 423
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Allen v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 708
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 23, 2018·No. No. ED 106125·Published

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

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

559 S.W.3d 423 (Allen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.