BAERG v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

BAERG v. State

271 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 2008 WL 5454218

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 16, 2008·No. ED 90968·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jonathan Baerg, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or endorse a witness to testify-

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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, Jonathan Baerg, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or endorse a witness to testify-

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

BAERG v. State, 271 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 2008 WL 5454218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

271 S.W.3d 636 (BAERG v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related