Martin v. State

928 S.W.2d 14, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1505, 1996 WL 495066
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Martin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 339
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 3, 1996·No. No. 69983·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In his Rule 24.035 motion, Movant alleges his trial counsel failed to investigate and discuss potential witnesses and the potential outcome of his case if it went to trial. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their in[15]*15formation only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Martin v. State, 928 S.W.2d 14, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1505, 1996 WL 495066 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

928 S.W.2d 14 (Martin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.