Bennett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bennett v. State

361 S.W.3d 477, 2012 WL 828114, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 323

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 2012

DocketED 96810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 361 S.W.3d 477 (Bennett 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

Bennett v. State, 361 S.W.3d 477, 2012 WL 828114, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 323 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Floyd R. Bennett (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record which, if proven, would show his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to, make a record of, and perfect for appeal the fact that Movant was shackled in the presence of the jury.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Floyd R. Bennett (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record which, if proven, would show his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to, make a record of, and perfect for appeal the fact that Movant was shackled in the presence of the jury.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 S.W.3d 477, 2012 WL 828114, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack