Green v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Green v. State

383 S.W.3d 68, 2012 WL 5207618, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Green v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 23, 2012·No. No. ED 97817·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kerry Green (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Kerry Green (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Green v. State, 383 S.W.3d 68, 2012 WL 5207618, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

383 S.W.3d 68 (Green v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.