Franklin v. State

116 S.W.3d 699, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1455, 2003 WL 22127907
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 16, 2003·No. No. ED 81464·Published

Opinion

[700] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Seddrick Franklin,1 appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.152 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions on first degree murder, first degree assault, two counts of first degree robbery, two counts of first degree burglary, two counts of forcible sodomy, and four counts of armed criminal action. State v. Franklin, 16 S.W.3d 692 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely and properly file his medical records with the trial court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

Franklin v. State, 116 S.W.3d 699, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1455, 2003 WL 22127907 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

116 S.W.3d 699 (Franklin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Franklin
16 S.W.3d 692 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)