Brown v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brown v. State

455 S.W.3d 476, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2015 WL 672426

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101025

StatusPublished

This text of 455 S.W.3d 476 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 455 S.W.3d 476, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2015 WL 672426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arvon Brown (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue for cause under Rule 32.04.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arvon Brown (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue for cause under Rule 32.04.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 S.W.3d 476, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2015 WL 672426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-moctapp-2015.