Ball v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ball v. State

556 S.W.3d 679

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105909

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 679 (Ball 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

Ball v. State, 556 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Aaron Ball appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court erred because his plea counsel and probation revocation counsel were ineffective. We disagree and affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Aaron Ball appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that the motion court erred because his plea counsel and probation revocation counsel were ineffective. We disagree and affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-state-moctapp-2018.