Irving v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Irving v. State

563 S.W.3d 181

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 11, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106375

StatusPublished

This text of 563 S.W.3d 181 (Irving 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

Irving v. State, 563 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Margaret M. Irving ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment" denying Movant's "Amended Rule 29.15 Motion to Vacate Judgment & Sentence," which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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

PER CURIAM

Margaret M. Irving ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment" denying Movant's "Amended Rule 29.15 Motion to Vacate Judgment & Sentence," which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion 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)

563 S.W.3d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irving-v-state-moctapp-2018.