Cannon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cannon v. State

271 S.W.3d 42, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489, 2008 WL 5454176

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 2008·No. ED 91070·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Osborne Cannon, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by informing him that the court and prosecutor would not give him the opportunity to hire private counsel to represent him at trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Osborne Cannon, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by informing him that the court and prosecutor would not give him the opportunity to hire private counsel to represent him at trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cannon v. State, 271 S.W.3d 42, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1489, 2008 WL 5454176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

271 S.W.3d 42 (Cannon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related