Blackburn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blackburn v. State

502 S.W.3d 88, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1115, 2016 WL 6440398

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2016

DocketNo. ED104250

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 502 S.W.3d 88 (Blackburn 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

Blackburn v. State, 502 S.W.3d 88, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1115, 2016 WL 6440398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Giordanio A. Blackburn appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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

Giordanio A. Blackburn appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 88, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1115, 2016 WL 6440398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackburn-v-state-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack