McKay v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McKay v. State

573 S.W.3d 763

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106621

StatusPublished

This text of 573 S.W.3d 763 (McKay 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

McKay v. State, 573 S.W.3d 763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Daniel K. McKay ("McKay") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In his sole point on appeal, McKay argues that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to cite the proper burden of proof for prejudice in appealing the denial of McKay's speedy trial motion under the *764Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Daniel K. McKay ("McKay") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In his sole point on appeal, McKay argues that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to cite the proper burden of proof for prejudice in appealing the denial of McKay's speedy trial motion under the *764Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law ("UMDDL").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 S.W.3d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckay-v-state-moctapp-2019.