Mayfield v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mayfield v. State

297 S.W.3d 638, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1613, 2009 WL 3833993

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 17, 2009·No. ED 91672·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Mayfield (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by depriving Movant of his right to testify. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, *639 provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Richard Mayfield (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his appeal, Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by depriving Movant of his right to testify. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, *639 provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Mayfield v. State, 297 S.W.3d 638, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1613, 2009 WL 3833993 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

297 S.W.3d 638 (Mayfield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.