Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Bailey v. State

Bailey v. State

281 S.W.3d 927, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2009 WL 1121711
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 28, 2009
DocketED 90874
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 S.W.3d 927 (Bailey 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
Bailey v. State, 281 S.W.3d 927, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2009 WL 1121711 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, James Bailey, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not allowing him to testify at trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential 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

Related

State v. Helm
281 S.W.3d 927 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 S.W.3d 927, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2009 WL 1121711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-moctapp-2009.