Buckley v. State

136 S.W.3d 539, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 826, 2004 WL 1250484
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 8, 2004·No. No. ED 83345·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ralph E. Buckley appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for first-degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062, RSMo.2000. State v. Buckley, 75 S.W.3d 792 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002). He now asserts his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to repeat his request to instruct the jury to disregard and by failing to include two issues in his motion for new trial.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Buckley v. State, 136 S.W.3d 539, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 826, 2004 WL 1250484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

136 S.W.3d 539 (Buckley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Buckley
75 S.W.3d 792 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002)