Griffin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Griffin v. State

108 S.W.3d 46, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 421, 2003 WL 1486488

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80799

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.W.3d 46 (Griffin 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

Griffin v. State, 108 S.W.3d 46, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 421, 2003 WL 1486488 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sherman Griffin, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for second-degree robbery in violation of section 569.030, RSMo 2000. State v. Griffin, 28 S.W.3d 480 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion for rehearing or an application for transfer.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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.

Movant, Sherman Griffin, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for second-degree robbery in violation of section 569.030, RSMo 2000. State v. Griffin, 28 S.W.3d 480 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion for rehearing or an application for transfer.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.W.3d 46, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 421, 2003 WL 1486488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack