Jones v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jones v. State

69 S.W.3d 923, 2002 WL 377099

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79875

StatusPublished

This text of 69 S.W.3d 923 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 69 S.W.3d 923, 2002 WL 377099 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Robert Jones, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.030.1(1), RSMo 2000. State v. Jones, 31 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw because he was a necessary impeachment witness.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude [924]*924the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We 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.

Movant, Robert Jones, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.030.1(1), RSMo 2000. State v. Jones, 31 S.W.3d 515 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw because he was a necessary impeachment witness.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude [924]*924the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.W.3d 923, 2002 WL 377099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack