James v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

James v. State

185 S.W.3d 710, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 102, 2006 WL 163130

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in James v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 644 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 24, 2006·No. No. ED 86173·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Derek Q. James, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain questions by the prosecutor during the direct examination of a witness.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Derek Q. James, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain questions by the prosecutor during the direct examination of a witness.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

James v. State, 185 S.W.3d 710, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 102, 2006 WL 163130 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

185 S.W.3d 710 (James v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.