HARDGE v. State
359 S.W.3d 131, 2011 WL 6755921, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730
Opinion
ORDER
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
HARDGE v. State, 359 S.W.3d 131, 2011 WL 6755921, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
359 S.W.3d 131 (HARDGE v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Berg v. Berg
359 S.W.3d 131 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)