Haughton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haughton v. State

177 S.W.3d 867, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1754, 2005 WL 3116422

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 22, 2005·No. ED 85861·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Travis Haughton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that during the sentencing hearing his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advocate for more favorable sentences.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Travis Haughton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that during the sentencing hearing his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advocate for more favorable sentences.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Haughton v. State, 177 S.W.3d 867, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1754, 2005 WL 3116422 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

177 S.W.3d 867 (Haughton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.