Braggs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Braggs v. State

23 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 967, 2000 WL 821605

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76540

StatusPublished

This text of 23 S.W.3d 852 (Braggs 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

Braggs v. State, 23 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 967, 2000 WL 821605 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Braggs, movant, appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. The trial court convicted movant of possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 195.202 RSMo (1994) and sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a term of twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Following an unsuccessful appeal to this court, see State v. Braggs, 972 S.W.2d 643 (Mo.App.1998), movant filed the underlying motion. In that motion, movant claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

We have' reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no [853]*853error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Braggs, movant, appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. The trial court convicted movant of possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 195.202 RSMo (1994) and sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a term of twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Following an unsuccessful appeal to this court, see State v. Braggs, 972 S.W.2d 643 (Mo.App.1998), movant filed the underlying motion. In that motion, movant claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

We have' reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no [853]*853error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 967, 2000 WL 821605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braggs-v-state-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack