HARDGE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

HARDGE v. State

359 S.W.3d 131, 2011 WL 6755921, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

DocketWD 72863

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 131 (HARDGE 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

HARDGE v. State, 359 S.W.3d 131, 2011 WL 6755921, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Hardge appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Hardge contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct DNA and fingerprint testing. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Hardge appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Hardge contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct DNA and fingerprint testing. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 131, 2011 WL 6755921, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardge-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack