McGee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McGee v. State

331 S.W.3d 740, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 228, 2011 WL 601622

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2011

DocketED 94954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 331 S.W.3d 740 (McGee 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

McGee v. State, 331 S.W.3d 740, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 228, 2011 WL 601622 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas C. McGee (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his claim that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) file a timely motion of alibi, timely endorse Movant’s wife as a witness, and make an offer of proof; (2) endorse and call as a *741 witness co-defendant Andrea Wilks; (3) preserve an appellate issue by moving to strike a police officer’s testimony.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision to deny Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, 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.

Thomas C. McGee (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his claim that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) file a timely motion of alibi, timely endorse Movant’s wife as a witness, and make an offer of proof; (2) endorse and call as a *741 witness co-defendant Andrea Wilks; (3) preserve an appellate issue by moving to strike a police officer’s testimony.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision to deny Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 740, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 228, 2011 WL 601622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack