Carpenter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carpenter v. State

258 S.W.3d 834, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 665, 2008 WL 2053498

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 2008

DocketED 89819

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 S.W.3d 834 (Carpenter 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

Carpenter v. State, 258 S.W.3d 834, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 665, 2008 WL 2053498 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Carpenter (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant asserts the motion court committed clear error in denying his motion because he received ineffective assistance as a result of the “all or nothing” approach adopted by his trial counsel with regard to a videotaped statement he made to police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Carpenter (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant asserts the motion court committed clear error in denying his motion because he received ineffective assistance as a result of the “all or nothing” approach adopted by his trial counsel with regard to a videotaped statement he made to police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 834, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 665, 2008 WL 2053498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack