Kuhlenberg v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kuhlenberg v. State

99 S.W.3d 496, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2003 WL 942783

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81366

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.W.3d 496 (Kuhlenberg 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

Kuhlenberg v. State, 99 S.W.3d 496, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2003 WL 942783 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Robert Kuhlenberg, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule [497]*49729.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for two counts of forcible rape in violation of 566.030, RSMo 2000. State v. Kuhlenberg, 981 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.App.1998). The motion court initially denied Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing, but we reversed and remanded for a hearing. Kuhlenberg v. State, 54 S.W.3d 705 (Mo.App.2001). Movant now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present evidence that his victim offered to change her story in exchange for a monetary payment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only 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 Kuhlenberg, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule [497]*49729.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for two counts of forcible rape in violation of 566.030, RSMo 2000. State v. Kuhlenberg, 981 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.App.1998). The motion court initially denied Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing, but we reversed and remanded for a hearing. Kuhlenberg v. State, 54 S.W.3d 705 (Mo.App.2001). Movant now contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present evidence that his victim offered to change her story in exchange for a monetary payment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W.3d 496, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2003 WL 942783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuhlenberg-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack