Costello v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Costello v. State

179 S.W.3d 477, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1886, 2005 WL 3467941

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85665

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 477 (Costello 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

Costello v. State, 179 S.W.3d 477, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1886, 2005 WL 3467941 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Costello (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 29.15 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. In his appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that the attorney who represented him at his jury trial rendered ineffective assistance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have *478 no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Costello (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 29.15 Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. In his appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that the attorney who represented him at his jury trial rendered ineffective assistance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have *478 no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 477, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1886, 2005 WL 3467941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costello-v-state-moctapp-2005.