Miller v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. State

345 S.W.3d 895, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2011 WL 3567677

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2011

DocketWD 72833

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 345 S.W.3d 895 (Miller 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

Miller v. State, 345 S.W.3d 895, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2011 WL 3567677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Miller appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He sought to vacate his convictions for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and driving while revoked, section 302.321, *896 RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and consecutive sentences of twenty years and five years imprisonment, respectively. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress evidence of intoxication discovered following a Terry stop that was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Miller appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He sought to vacate his convictions for driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and driving while revoked, section 302.321, *896 RSMo Cum.Supp.2011, and consecutive sentences of twenty years and five years imprisonment, respectively. He claims his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress evidence of intoxication discovered following a Terry stop that was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 S.W.3d 895, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1054, 2011 WL 3567677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack