Davis v. State

313 S.W.3d 730, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 873, 2010 WL 2483275
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 22, 2010·No. WD 70749·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*731 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Davis appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief and contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object and raise in his post-trial motion the fact that Davis was visibly restrained by a leg brace, waist restraints, and handcuffs throughout his trial. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 730, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 873, 2010 WL 2483275 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

313 S.W.3d 730 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weaver v. State
313 S.W.3d 730 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)