Fields v. State

263 S.W.3d 780, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1246, 2008 WL 4209587
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fields v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 241 S.W.3d 441
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 16, 2008·No. No. ED 90579·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Fields (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel Robert Steele provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise Movant that he could testify at the penalty phase of his trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We 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

Fields v. State, 263 S.W.3d 780, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1246, 2008 WL 4209587 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

263 S.W.3d 780 (Fields v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.