Kortz v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kortz v. State

402 S.W.3d 157, 2013 WL 3226839, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 780

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 25, 2013·No. No. WD 75060·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark Kortz appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, he claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to keep evidence of his uncharged crimes and bad acts from the jury. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memoran[158] dum has been provided to the parties. 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:

Mark Kortz appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, he claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to keep evidence of his uncharged crimes and bad acts from the jury. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memoran[158] dum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Kortz v. State, 402 S.W.3d 157, 2013 WL 3226839, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 780 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

402 S.W.3d 157 (Kortz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.