Crawford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Crawford v. State

190 S.W.3d 565, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2006 WL 1147665

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 565 (Crawford 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

Crawford v. State, 190 S.W.3d 565, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2006 WL 1147665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*566 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Crawford (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to call Movant to testify at the trial after he indicated his desire to do so, and (2) for failing to request that the trial court individually voir dire each juror about a newspaper article published about Movant’s case on the morning of the verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims 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

*566 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Crawford (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to call Movant to testify at the trial after he indicated his desire to do so, and (2) for failing to request that the trial court individually voir dire each juror about a newspaper article published about Movant’s case on the morning of the verdict.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims 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)

190 S.W.3d 565, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 609, 2006 WL 1147665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack