Brooks v. State

390 S.W.3d 260, 2013 WL 326919, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 102
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brooks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 199
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 29, 2013·No. No. ED 97804·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Brooks (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective: (1) for failing to move to dismiss the case based on Movant’s right to a speedy trial, and (2) for failing to move to dismiss the case based on the State’s failure to preserve evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. 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

Brooks v. State, 390 S.W.3d 260, 2013 WL 326919, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

390 S.W.3d 260 (Brooks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.