Hartman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hartman v. State

358 S.W.3d 589, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 175, 2012 WL 456156

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hartman v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 165 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 14, 2012·No. ED 96965·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carnell A. Hartman (“Hartman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of a post-conviction relief motion (“PCR motion”) pursuant to Rule 24.035.

On appeal, Hartman argued that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

DISMISSED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carnell A. Hartman (“Hartman”) appeals the circuit court’s denial of a post-conviction relief motion (“PCR motion”) pursuant to Rule 24.035.

On appeal, Hartman argued that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel at his probation revocation hearing. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

DISMISSED.

Hartman v. State, 358 S.W.3d 589, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 175, 2012 WL 456156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

358 S.W.3d 589 (Hartman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.