Moxley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moxley v. State

543 S.W.3d 83

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketWD 80716

StatusPublished

This text of 543 S.W.3d 83 (Moxley 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

Moxley v. State, 543 S.W.3d 83 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

*84Mr. Steve Moxley appeals from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Moxley claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in the cross-examination of a state's witness. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

*84Mr. Steve Moxley appeals from the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri, denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Moxley claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in the cross-examination of a state's witness. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 S.W.3d 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moxley-v-state-moctapp-2018.