Bolden v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bolden v. State

437 S.W.3d 367, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 568, 2014 WL 2106701

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 20, 2014·No. No. ED 100188·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emily Bolden (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying her Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant argues she was denied her right to effective assistance of counsel. We find that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

[368] An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Emily Bolden (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying her Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant argues she was denied her right to effective assistance of counsel. We find that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

[368] An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Bolden v. State, 437 S.W.3d 367, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 568, 2014 WL 2106701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

437 S.W.3d 367 (Bolden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.