Culpepper v. State

174 S.W.3d 77, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2005 WL 2746400
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 2005·No. ED 85447·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, John Culpepper, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor during closing argument.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Culpepper v. State, 174 S.W.3d 77, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2005 WL 2746400 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

174 S.W.3d 77 (Culpepper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grizzle v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, INC.
174 S.W.3d 77 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)