Caldwell v. State

223 S.W.3d 180, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 743, 2007 WL 1412532
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 2007·No. ED 88252·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Caldwell (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to protect Movant’s right to a speedy trial under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainer Laws (“UMDDL”). We affirm.

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 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

Caldwell v. State, 223 S.W.3d 180, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 743, 2007 WL 1412532 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

223 S.W.3d 180 (Caldwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Curry
223 S.W.3d 180 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)