GOLET v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

GOLET v. State

294 S.W.3d 88, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1391, 2009 WL 3086017

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

DocketED 91880

StatusPublished

This text of 294 S.W.3d 88 (GOLET 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

GOLET v. State, 294 S.W.3d 88, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1391, 2009 WL 3086017 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Golet (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) he pleaded facts showing his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an error on appeal by not filing a complete record on appeal, and (2) he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to particularize the prejudice to Movant in a motion to sever.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error 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.

Steven Golet (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because (1) he pleaded facts showing his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an error on appeal by not filing a complete record on appeal, and (2) he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to particularize the prejudice to Movant in a motion to sever.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error 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)

294 S.W.3d 88, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1391, 2009 WL 3086017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golet-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack