Hood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hood v. State

314 S.W.3d 436, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2010 WL 2590357

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2010

DocketED 93711

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 314 S.W.3d 436 (Hood 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

Hood v. State, 314 S.W.3d 436, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2010 WL 2590357 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Hood (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 *437 that the motion court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to object to legally and logically irrelevant evidence about an unrelated domestic incident; and (2) submitting improperly drafted verdict directors for third-degree assault and third-degree domestic assault. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Hood (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 *437 that the motion court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to object to legally and logically irrelevant evidence about an unrelated domestic incident; and (2) submitting improperly drafted verdict directors for third-degree assault and third-degree domestic assault. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 S.W.3d 436, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2010 WL 2590357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack