Maxie v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Maxie v. State

745 S.W.2d 751, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 1988 WL 1010

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1988

DocketNo. 52959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 745 S.W.2d 751 (Maxie 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

Maxie v. State, 745 S.W.2d 751, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 1988 WL 1010 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Defendant-movant appeals from motion court’s denial of his Rule 27.26 motion which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Motion court’s conclusion and judgment was not clearly erroneous. Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Defendant-movant appeals from motion court’s denial of his Rule 27.26 motion which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Motion court’s conclusion and judgment was not clearly erroneous. Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 S.W.2d 751, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, 1988 WL 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxie-v-state-moctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack