Betzel v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Betzel v. State

475 S.W.3d 703, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 416, 2015 WL 1813038

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 21, 2015·No. No. ED 101094·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Larry Betzel (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-.conyiction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and locate a videotape to use as impeachment evidence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Larry Betzel (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-.conyiction motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and locate a videotape to use as impeachment evidence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to. Rule 84.16(b).

Betzel v. State, 475 S.W.3d 703, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 416, 2015 WL 1813038 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

475 S.W.3d 703 (Betzel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.