Gordon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gordon v. State

157 S.W.3d 374, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 406, 2005 WL 525223

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 2005·No. ED 84603·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darius Gordon appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. He contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Darius Gordon appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. He contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Gordon v. State, 157 S.W.3d 374, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 406, 2005 WL 525223 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

157 S.W.3d 374 (Gordon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.