Johnson v. State

110 S.W.3d 871, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1548, 2003 WL 21705524

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 469 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 22, 2003·No. No. ED 81544·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Johnson appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[872]*872We 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.

Anthony Johnson appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

[872]*872We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Johnson v. State, 110 S.W.3d 871, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1548, 2003 WL 21705524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

110 S.W.3d 871 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.