Johnson v. State

77 S.W.3d 663, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1148, 2002 WL 1050239
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2010
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 28, 2002·No. No. ED 79571·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael L. Johnson (Johnson) appeals from the motion court’s Order and Judgment (Judgment) denying his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief (Motion) under Rule 24.035 following an evidentiary hearing.1 Johnson claims ineffective assistance of plea counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion [664]*664court’s Judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Johnson v. State, 77 S.W.3d 663, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1148, 2002 WL 1050239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

77 S.W.3d 663 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.