Fiorella v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fiorella v. State

347 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2011 WL 3889162

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 2011

DocketWD 72351

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 183 (Fiorella 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

Fiorella v. State, 347 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2011 WL 3889162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

This is a Rule 29.15 case. The issue is whether the movant’s right to a competent attorney was violated by virtue of his trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate whether the police prematurely deemed his request for an attorney abandoned after they had requested that he take a breath test. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

This is a Rule 29.15 case. The issue is whether the movant’s right to a competent attorney was violated by virtue of his trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate whether the police prematurely deemed his request for an attorney abandoned after they had requested that he take a breath test. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1144, 2011 WL 3889162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiorella-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack