Garrett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Garrett v. State

342 S.W.3d 907, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2011 WL 2473029

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2011

DocketED 94960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 907 (Garrett 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

Garrett v. State, 342 S.W.3d 907, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2011 WL 2473029 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Garrett (Garrett), appeals from the motion court’s judgment, following an *908 evidentiary hearing, denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. This Court affirmed Garrett’s convictions in State v. Garrett, 266 S.W.3d 342 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). On appeal, Garrett claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to include an instruction for a lesser included offense in his motion for new trial, and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the admissibility of evidence seized and statements taken from Garrett. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s rulings, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Garrett (Garrett), appeals from the motion court’s judgment, following an *908 evidentiary hearing, denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. This Court affirmed Garrett’s convictions in State v. Garrett, 266 S.W.3d 342 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). On appeal, Garrett claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to include an instruction for a lesser included offense in his motion for new trial, and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the admissibility of evidence seized and statements taken from Garrett. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s rulings, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 907, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 872, 2011 WL 2473029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack