Jolley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jolley v. State

226 S.W.3d 257, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1444, 2007 WL 1732885

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2007·No. No. ED 86812·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, William Jolley, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he proved that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call his mother to testify at his criminal trial.

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, William Jolley, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he proved that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call his mother to testify at his criminal trial.

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).

Jolley v. State, 226 S.W.3d 257, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1444, 2007 WL 1732885 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

226 S.W.3d 257 (Jolley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.