Jackson v. State

303 S.W.3d 162, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 164, 2010 WL 528078
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jackson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1689
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 2010·No. ED 92747·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ray Jackson (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he was denied his rights to due process and to effective assistance of appellate counsel and of trial counsel.

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

Jackson v. State, 303 S.W.3d 162, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 164, 2010 WL 528078 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

303 S.W.3d 162 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ray
303 S.W.3d 162 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)