Lynch v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lynch v. State

283 S.W.3d 303, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 635, 2009 WL 1383676

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2009

DocketED 91740

StatusPublished

This text of 283 S.W.3d 303 (Lynch 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

Lynch v. State, 283 S.W.3d 303, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 635, 2009 WL 1383676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Lynch (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in advising Movant regarding his right to testify and the potential negative ramifications of choosing not to testify, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the lesser-included instruction for domestic assault in the third degree.

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. *304 Rule 29.15(k). An 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.

Jason Lynch (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in advising Movant regarding his right to testify and the potential negative ramifications of choosing not to testify, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the lesser-included instruction for domestic assault in the third degree.

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. *304 Rule 29.15(k). An 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)

283 S.W.3d 303, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 635, 2009 WL 1383676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-v-state-moctapp-2009.