Driskell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Driskell v. State

276 S.W.3d 862, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 579591

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 2009

DocketWD 69383

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 S.W.3d 862 (Driskell 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

Driskell v. State, 276 S.W.3d 862, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 579591 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Driskell appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. He challenges the motion court’s ruling that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress incriminating evidence and failing to object to the admission of this evidence at trial.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Driskell appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. He challenges the motion court’s ruling that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress incriminating evidence and failing to object to the admission of this evidence at trial.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 862, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 579591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driskell-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack