Eichelberger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Eichelberger v. State

219 S.W.3d 790, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 615, 2007 WL 1120320

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2007

DocketED 88284

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.W.3d 790 (Eichelberger 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

Eichelberger v. State, 219 S.W.3d 790, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 615, 2007 WL 1120320 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Eichelberger (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Mov-ant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the trial *791 court that the court was required to run Movant’s ten-year sentence concurrently with the Movant’s two concurrent Illinois sentences for similar crimes.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P. 2002, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Eichelberger (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Mov-ant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the trial *791 court that the court was required to run Movant’s ten-year sentence concurrently with the Movant’s two concurrent Illinois sentences for similar crimes.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Rules Crim. P. 2002, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 790, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 615, 2007 WL 1120320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eichelberger-v-state-moctapp-2007.