Burnett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burnett v. State

314 S.W.3d 881, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2010 WL 2817208

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 20, 2010

DocketWD 71049

StatusPublished

This text of 314 S.W.3d 881 (Burnett 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

Burnett v. State, 314 S.W.3d 881, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2010 WL 2817208 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Burnett appeals from the motion court’s denial of his post-conviction motion and contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call two witnesses. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Burnett appeals from the motion court’s denial of his post-conviction motion and contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call two witnesses. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 S.W.3d 881, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 972, 2010 WL 2817208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnett-v-state-moctapp-2010.