Lederman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lederman v. State

386 S.W.3d 915, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1525, 2012 WL 6018641

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97750

StatusPublished

This text of 386 S.W.3d 915 (Lederman 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

Lederman v. State, 386 S.W.3d 915, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1525, 2012 WL 6018641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Lederman, (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant argues two points on appeal. First, movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call Daughter and Wife as alibi witnesses at trial because they would have testified and corroborated Movant’s defense that he never inappropriately touched victim. Second, Movant argues the motion court abused its discretion in denying his post-conviction motion because the court refused to release Movant on probation after 120 days, without first holding a hearing because Movant had been sentenced pursuant to Section 559.115. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k) Mo. R.Crim.P.(2011); Nicklasson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul Lederman, (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant argues two points on appeal. First, movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call Daughter and Wife as alibi witnesses at trial because they would have testified and corroborated Movant’s defense that he never inappropriately touched victim. Second, Movant argues the motion court abused its discretion in denying his post-conviction motion because the court refused to release Movant on probation after 120 days, without first holding a hearing because Movant had been sentenced pursuant to Section 559.115. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k) Mo. R.Crim.P.(2011); Nicklasson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Mo. banc 2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 S.W.3d 915, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1525, 2012 WL 6018641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lederman-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack