Bolden v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bolden v. State

541 S.W.3d 715

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105327

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 S.W.3d 715 (Bolden 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

Bolden v. State, 541 S.W.3d 715 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*716Darrell Bolden ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call him to testify at a hearing on his motion to suppress statements. Movant argues he would have testified the confessions were induced by threats and promises. Had the trial court learned of the threats and promises, Movant argues it would have ruled his confessions were involuntary and inadmissible. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

PER CURIAM.

*716Darrell Bolden ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call him to testify at a hearing on his motion to suppress statements. Movant argues he would have testified the confessions were induced by threats and promises. Had the trial court learned of the threats and promises, Movant argues it would have ruled his confessions were involuntary and inadmissible. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.3d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack