Driskell v. State
276 S.W.3d 862, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 579591
Opinion
ORDER
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
Driskell v. State, 276 S.W.3d 862, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, 2009 WL 579591 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
276 S.W.3d 862 (Driskell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
SHEPHERDS COMPANY v. Ward
276 S.W.3d 862 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)