Bowles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bowles v. State

190 S.W.3d 614, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 2006 WL 1222820

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 2006

DocketWD 65639

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 614 (Bowles 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

Bowles v. State, 190 S.W.3d 614, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 2006 WL 1222820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elbert Bowles appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 postconviction relief motion. The judgment of conviction that he seeks to vacate was for one count of burglary in the first degree, section 569.160, RSMo 2000. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirty years in prison. He claims that he was entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing, asserting that he alleged facts, not conclusions, which if true would entitle him to relief and which are not refuted by the record. His substantive point asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective, in contravention of both federal and state constitutions, for failing to adequately cross-examine a witness to the event for which he was charged, to his prejudice. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elbert Bowles appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 postconviction relief motion. The judgment of conviction that he seeks to vacate was for one count of burglary in the first degree, section 569.160, RSMo 2000. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirty years in prison. He claims that he was entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing, asserting that he alleged facts, not conclusions, which if true would entitle him to relief and which are not refuted by the record. His substantive point asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective, in contravention of both federal and state constitutions, for failing to adequately cross-examine a witness to the event for which he was charged, to his prejudice. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 614, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 2006 WL 1222820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-state-moctapp-2006.