Mathews v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mathews v. State

414 S.W.3d 48, 2013 WL 6092722, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1373

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 19, 2013·No. No. ED 99639·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael W. Mathews appeals from the motion court’s “Conclusions of Law and Order” denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their infor[49] mation only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Michael W. Mathews appeals from the motion court’s “Conclusions of Law and Order” denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their infor[49] mation only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Mathews v. State, 414 S.W.3d 48, 2013 WL 6092722, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1373 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

414 S.W.3d 48 (Mathews v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.