Burnett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burnett v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 20, 2010·No. WD 71049·Published

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).

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

Pincite

314 S.W.3d 881 (Burnett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.