Dotson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dotson v. State

291 S.W.3d 372, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2009 WL 2748043

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 2009

DocketED 92067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 S.W.3d 372 (Dotson 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

Dotson v. State, 291 S.W.3d 372, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2009 WL 2748043 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leann Dotson appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) denying her Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence (PCR Motion) alleging she received ineffective assistance from her plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment 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.

Leann Dotson appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) denying her Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence (PCR Motion) alleging she received ineffective assistance from her plea counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 S.W.3d 372, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2009 WL 2748043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dotson-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack