Howell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Howell v. State

294 S.W.3d 89, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2009 WL 3086035

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

DocketED 91325

StatusPublished

This text of 294 S.W.3d 89 (Howell 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

Howell v. State, 294 S.W.3d 89, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2009 WL 3086035 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Howell (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel (“Counsel”) was ineffective for failing to call LaQuilla “Shay” January (“Ms. January”), Bobbie Bolden (“Ms. Bolden”), and Robert Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) as witnesses. Second, Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his amended motion without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law on all allegations contained in Mov- *90 ant’s pro se motions, which were physically attached to his amended motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Anthony Howell (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel (“Counsel”) was ineffective for failing to call LaQuilla “Shay” January (“Ms. January”), Bobbie Bolden (“Ms. Bolden”), and Robert Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) as witnesses. Second, Mov-ant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his amended motion without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law on all allegations contained in Mov- *90 ant’s pro se motions, which were physically attached to his amended motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.W.3d 89, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393, 2009 WL 3086035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-state-moctapp-2009.