Carey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carey v. State

341 S.W.3d 888, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 726, 2011 WL 2138596

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2011

DocketED 94875

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 341 S.W.3d 888 (Carey 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

Carey v. State, 341 S.W.3d 888, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 726, 2011 WL 2138596 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Carey (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his plea attorneys were ineffective in failing to investigate and secure a potential witness, and in failing to litigate and secure the dismissal of the armed criminal action count associated with the assault of a law enforcement officer by the reckless operation of a motor vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court 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.

John Carey (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his plea attorneys were ineffective in failing to investigate and secure a potential witness, and in failing to litigate and secure the dismissal of the armed criminal action count associated with the assault of a law enforcement officer by the reckless operation of a motor vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 888, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 726, 2011 WL 2138596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack