Fenton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fenton v. State

216 S.W.3d 260, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 424, 2007 WL 756108

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

DocketNo. WD 66554

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.W.3d 260 (Fenton 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

Fenton v. State, 216 S.W.3d 260, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 424, 2007 WL 756108 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Troy Fenton appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Fenton was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of escape from confinement, Section 575.210. Fenton alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to a State’s question during voir dire. This court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and finds no error of law. A written opinion reciting the facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Troy Fenton appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Fenton was found guilty after a jury trial of one count of escape from confinement, Section 575.210. Fenton alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to a State’s question during voir dire. This court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and finds no error of law. A written opinion reciting the facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.W.3d 260, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 424, 2007 WL 756108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenton-v-state-moctapp-2007.