Hunter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hunter v. State

453 S.W.3d 865, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 97, 2015 WL 428036

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 3, 2015·No. No. ED 100851·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Martez Hunter (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-[866] conviction motion based on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify at trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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

Martez Hunter (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-[866] conviction motion based on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify at trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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).

Hunter v. State, 453 S.W.3d 865, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 97, 2015 WL 428036 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

453 S.W.3d 865 (Hunter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.