Fulton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fulton v. State

192 S.W.3d 499, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 687, 2006 WL 1319960

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2006

DocketED 86914

StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.W.3d 499 (Fulton 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

Fulton v. State, 192 S.W.3d 499, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 687, 2006 WL 1319960 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Fulton (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress or objecting to the victim’s identification of Movant. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Fulton (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress or objecting to the victim’s identification of Movant. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.W.3d 499, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 687, 2006 WL 1319960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-v-state-moctapp-2006.