Johnston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnston v. State

278 S.W.3d 245, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2009 WL 685331

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

DocketED 91789

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 245 (Johnston 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

Johnston v. State, 278 S.W.3d 245, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2009 WL 685331 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM-

David Johnston (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-convietion relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing hjs appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal his claims that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and admitting items seized during the search of his trailer and outbuildings into evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State’s exhibit 10, photographs of the victim, into evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM-

David Johnston (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-convietion relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing hjs appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal his claims that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and admitting items seized during the search of his trailer and outbuildings into evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State’s exhibit 10, photographs of the victim, into evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 245, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 340, 2009 WL 685331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack