Gates v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gates v. State

349 S.W.3d 472, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 2011 WL 4458780

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2011

DocketED 94528

StatusPublished

This text of 349 S.W.3d 472 (Gates 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

Gates v. State, 349 S.W.3d 472, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 2011 WL 4458780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Gates (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City *473 of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness who would have testified that Movant requested an attorney before he made his statement to police.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Gates (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City *473 of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness who would have testified that Movant requested an attorney before he made his statement to police.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 S.W.3d 472, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1275, 2011 WL 4458780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gates-v-state-moctapp-2011.