Dynes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dynes v. State

150 S.W.3d 125, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1744, 2004 WL 2586172

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83957

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.W.3d 125 (Dynes 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

Dynes v. State, 150 S.W.3d 125, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1744, 2004 WL 2586172 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ceasar Dynes (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Previously we affirmed Movant’s convictions of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020 RSMo 2000¹ and armed criminal action, section 571.015. State v. Dynes, 101 S.W.3d 342 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Movant now contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call two witnesses at his trial.

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. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed 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.

Ceasar Dynes (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Previously we affirmed Movant’s convictions of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020 RSMo 2000¹ and armed criminal action, section 571.015. State v. Dynes, 101 S.W.3d 342 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Movant now contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call two witnesses at his trial.

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. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.W.3d 125, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1744, 2004 WL 2586172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dynes-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack