Lanning v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lanning v. State

328 S.W.3d 466, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1666, 2010 WL 4961098

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

DocketED 94174

StatusPublished

This text of 328 S.W.3d 466 (Lanning 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

Lanning v. State, 328 S.W.3d 466, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1666, 2010 WL 4961098 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

George R. Lanning (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record which, if proven, showed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to impeach the victim’s mother’s testimony, (2) to object to Movant’s leg restraint in the courtroom, (3) to object to the courtroom arrangement, and (4) to call Deputy Eric Schlueter to testify.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). Ai opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

George R. Lanning (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts not conclusively refuted by the record which, if proven, showed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to impeach the victim’s mother’s testimony, (2) to object to Movant’s leg restraint in the courtroom, (3) to object to the courtroom arrangement, and (4) to call Deputy Eric Schlueter to testify.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). Ai opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 S.W.3d 466, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1666, 2010 WL 4961098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanning-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack