BRETHOLD v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

BRETHOLD v. State

202 S.W.3d 45, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1414, 2006 WL 2728745

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 26, 2006

DocketED 87170

StatusPublished

This text of 202 S.W.3d 45 (BRETHOLD 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

BRETHOLD v. State, 202 S.W.3d 45, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1414, 2006 WL 2728745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Adam R. Brethold (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant to testify at the hearing on his motion to suppress.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Adam R. Brethold (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant to testify at the hearing on his motion to suppress.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 S.W.3d 45, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1414, 2006 WL 2728745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brethold-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack