Moxley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moxley v. State

543 S.W.3d 83

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moxley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 157 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 27, 2018·No. WD 80716·Published

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).

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

Pincite

543 S.W.3d 83 (Moxley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.