HECKENLIVELY v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

HECKENLIVELY v. State

262 S.W.3d 697, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 2008 WL 4200693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

DocketWD 68665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 S.W.3d 697 (HECKENLIVELY 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

HECKENLIVELY v. State, 262 S.W.3d 697, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 2008 WL 4200693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Heckenlively appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Heckenlively raises two constitutional claims, both of which could have been brought in his direct appeal and, as a result, are not cognizable under Rule 29.15. Heckenlively’s final point — that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to documents (establishing that Heckenlively had previously pled guilty to several sexual offenses in California) that were not properly certified pursuant to Section 490.130 — is denied as he cannot establish that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to raise a meritorious objection.

A lengthy opinion would serve no prece-dential purpose. A memorandum of the reasoning of the court has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Heckenlively appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Heckenlively raises two constitutional claims, both of which could have been brought in his direct appeal and, as a result, are not cognizable under Rule 29.15. Heckenlively’s final point — that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to documents (establishing that Heckenlively had previously pled guilty to several sexual offenses in California) that were not properly certified pursuant to Section 490.130 — is denied as he cannot establish that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to raise a meritorious objection.

A lengthy opinion would serve no prece-dential purpose. A memorandum of the reasoning of the court has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.3d 697, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 2008 WL 4200693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heckenlively-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack