Dudley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dudley v. State

244 S.W.3d 279, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 189, 2008 WL 294662

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2008

DocketWD 67417

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 S.W.3d 279 (Dudley 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

Dudley v. State, 244 S.W.3d 279, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 189, 2008 WL 294662 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark L. Dudley appeals the denial after an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we find 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 precedential 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark L. Dudley appeals the denial after an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we find 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 precedential value, but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W.3d 279, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 189, 2008 WL 294662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudley-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack