Harrell v. State

414 S.W.3d 684, 2013 WL 6199548, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 26, 2013·No. No. ED 99140·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Raymon Harrell (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his claim that his defense counsel was ineffective in failing to call two witnesses to testify at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s decision to deny Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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

Harrell v. State, 414 S.W.3d 684, 2013 WL 6199548, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

414 S.W.3d 684 (Harrell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Taylor G.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2026
Jennifer Gaby v. Tony Gaby
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2022
Jamie Gravatt v. Michael Barczykowski
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2021
Sarah Perkins Chambers v. Joshua Timothy Chambers
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2021
In Re Caroline U.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2019