Little v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Little v. State

190 S.W.3d 568, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 590, 2006 WL 1147742

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86811

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 568 (Little 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

Little v. State, 190 S.W.3d 568, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 590, 2006 WL 1147742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie E. Little (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 29.15. 1 Movant alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 'call Movant and another witness to testify and for failing to request MAI-CR 3d 308.14. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie E. Little (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 29.15. 1 Movant alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to 'call Movant and another witness to testify and for failing to request MAI-CR 3d 308.14. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 568, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 590, 2006 WL 1147742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack