Clay v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clay v. State

349 S.W.3d 474, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1281, 2011 WL 4458892

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

DocketED 95850

StatusPublished

This text of 349 S.W.3d 474 (Clay 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

Clay v. State, 349 S.W.3d 474, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1281, 2011 WL 4458892 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William Clay (Clay) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without granting Clay an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Clay’s conviction on a claim of unrelated error in State v. Clay, 299 S.W.3d 766, 767 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Clay timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial and judgment of acquittal due to juror misconduct. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s rulings, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on ap *475 peal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William Clay (Clay) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without granting Clay an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Clay’s conviction on a claim of unrelated error in State v. Clay, 299 S.W.3d 766, 767 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Clay timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, alleging that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial and judgment of acquittal due to juror misconduct. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s rulings, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on ap *475 peal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 S.W.3d 474, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1281, 2011 WL 4458892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack