Glass v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Glass v. State

347 S.W.3d 172, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2011 WL 3806900

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 94766

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 172 (Glass 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

Glass v. State, 347 S.W.3d 172, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2011 WL 3806900 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Glass (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce two alibi witnesses, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a verdict director for stealing that omitted the fourth element identifying that the item stolen was a credit card, and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the omission of the fourth element of the verdict director.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of eiTor to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Glass (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to produce two alibi witnesses, (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a verdict director for stealing that omitted the fourth element identifying that the item stolen was a credit card, and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the omission of the fourth element of the verdict director.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of eiTor to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 172, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2011 WL 3806900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack