Meadors v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Meadors v. State

483 S.W.3d 469, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 233, 2016 WL 1085705

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 15, 2016·No. No. ED 102824·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Meadors appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raises one point on appeal: that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel should have raised the defense of entrapment. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information 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

James Meadors appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raises one point on appeal: that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel should have raised the defense of entrapment. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Meadors v. State, 483 S.W.3d 469, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 233, 2016 WL 1085705 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

483 S.W.3d 469 (Meadors v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.