Bailey v. State
281 S.W.3d 927, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2009 WL 1121711
Opinion
ORDER
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
Bailey v. State, 281 S.W.3d 927, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2009 WL 1121711 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
281 S.W.3d 927 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Helm
281 S.W.3d 927 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)