Lake v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lake v. State

382 S.W.3d 247, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1383, 2012 WL 5306981

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 30, 2012·No. No. WD 74535·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Howard Lake appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Lake sought to vacate his conviction for the class B felony driving while intoxicated (chronic offender), sections 577.010 and 577.023, RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and sentence of ten years imprisonment. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness to testify at trial. Because an opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum 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:

Howard Lake appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Lake sought to vacate his conviction for the class B felony driving while intoxicated (chronic offender), sections 577.010 and 577.023, RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and sentence of ten years imprisonment. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness to testify at trial. Because an opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Lake v. State, 382 S.W.3d 247, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1383, 2012 WL 5306981 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

382 S.W.3d 247 (Lake v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.