Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

72 S.W.3d 618, 2002 WL 655387

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80167

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.W.3d 618 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 72 S.W.3d 618, 2002 WL 655387 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Chico Lee, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for distribution of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo 2000. State v. Lee, 36 S.W.3d 405 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). He now contends his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion 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, Chico Lee, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for distribution of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo 2000. State v. Lee, 36 S.W.3d 405 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). He now contends his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.W.3d 618, 2002 WL 655387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack