Millender v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Millender v. State

326 S.W.3d 560, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1639, 2010 WL 4813718

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

DocketED 93986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 326 S.W.3d 560 (Millender 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

Millender v. State, 326 S.W.3d 560, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1639, 2010 WL 4813718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Millender appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Millender argues he was denied his right to effective assistance of trial counsel. We find the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Millender appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Millender argues he was denied his right to effective assistance of trial counsel. We find the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.W.3d 560, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1639, 2010 WL 4813718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millender-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack