Childers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Childers v. State

211 S.W.3d 626, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2007 WL 92578

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

DocketED 86044

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.W.3d 626 (Childers 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

Childers v. State, 211 S.W.3d 626, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2007 WL 92578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Childers, Sr. (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims his trial counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel by failing to call his son and daughter as witnesses at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Movant’s claim 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.

John Childers, Sr. (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims his trial counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel by failing to call his son and daughter as witnesses at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Movant’s claim 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)

211 S.W.3d 626, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 65, 2007 WL 92578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childers-v-state-moctapp-2007.