GILLIEHAN v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

GILLIEHAN v. State

239 S.W.3d 171, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629, 2007 WL 4166044

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

DocketED 89278

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W.3d 171 (GILLIEHAN 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

GILLIEHAN v. State, 239 S.W.3d 171, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629, 2007 WL 4166044 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Farland Gilliehan (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) was convicted of second degree burglary, Section 569.170 RSMo (2000) 1 , stealing over $500, Section 570.030, stealing firearms, Section 570.030, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, Section 195.233. Movant was sentenced as a prior, persistent offender to fifteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections for each count with the sentences to run concurrently. This Court affirmed his convictions. State v. Gilliehan, 185 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his appellate counsel failed to assert on direct appeal that there was insufficient evidence upon which he could be found guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2006). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Farland Gilliehan (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) was convicted of second degree burglary, Section 569.170 RSMo (2000) 1 , stealing over $500, Section 570.030, stealing firearms, Section 570.030, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, Section 195.233. Movant was sentenced as a prior, persistent offender to fifteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections for each count with the sentences to run concurrently. This Court affirmed his convictions. State v. Gilliehan, 185 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2006).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his appellate counsel failed to assert on direct appeal that there was insufficient evidence upon which he could be found guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2006). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the motion court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W.3d 171, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629, 2007 WL 4166044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilliehan-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack