Cooper v. State

392 S.W.3d 536, 2013 WL 706192, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 258
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cooper v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 415
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98341·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Cooper (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) investigate and call the brother and sister of the victim; and (2) call C.R.H. and the Divi[537]*537sion of Family Services caseworker who had investigated allegations made by the victim against C.R.H.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Cooper v. State, 392 S.W.3d 536, 2013 WL 706192, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 258 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

392 S.W.3d 536 (Cooper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.