Eley v. State
This text of 781 S.W.2d 147 (Eley 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.
Opinion
ORDER
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding four of her ineffective assistance of counsel claims are insufficient to provide our court with a meaningful review upon appeal. We note that the motion court did not specifically address these claims. However, the motion court need not make any findings of fact and conclusions of law on claims that are unsupported by substantive evidence. McDonald v. State, 758 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Mo.App., E.D.1988). Since we find that the allegations in the present case were not supported by substantive evidence there was no error in the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The motion court’s findings regarding the remaining two claims are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We, therefore, affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
781 S.W.2d 147, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1521, 1989 WL 125669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eley-v-state-moctapp-1989.