Harris v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. State

477 S.W.3d 169, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1218, 2015 WL 7444878

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102496

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 169 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 477 S.W.3d 169, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1218, 2015 WL 7444878 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arrian Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because: (1) Movant’s trial counsel failed to adequately prepare Movant to testify in his own defense; (2) Movant’s trial counsel was -ineffective for failing to object to the admission of State’s Exhibit 19.

We have reviewed the- briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the [170]*170motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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.

Arrian Harris (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because: (1) Movant’s trial counsel failed to adequately prepare Movant to testify in his own defense; (2) Movant’s trial counsel was -ineffective for failing to object to the admission of State’s Exhibit 19.

We have reviewed the- briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the [170]*170motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 169, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1218, 2015 WL 7444878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-moctapp-2015.