Clark v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clark v. State

400 S.W.3d 910, 2013 WL 3131608, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 741

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 18, 2013·No. No. WD 75268·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Roger Clark appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after he was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Clark contends the motion court erred in denying post-conviction relief because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at his sentencing hearing. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Roger Clark appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after he was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Clark contends the motion court erred in denying post-conviction relief because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at his sentencing hearing. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

Clark v. State, 400 S.W.3d 910, 2013 WL 3131608, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 741 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

400 S.W.3d 910 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.