Hortiz v. State

171 S.W.3d 161, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1325, 2005 WL 2208035
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 13, 2005·No. ED 83859·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alvery Hortiz (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits after an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, movant claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to strike two jurors for cause, and because counsel failed to call two witnesses at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

Hortiz v. State, 171 S.W.3d 161, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1325, 2005 WL 2208035 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

171 S.W.3d 161 (Hortiz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dove, Damon Kendrick
Texas Supreme Court, 2015