Murphy v. State

323 S.W.3d 91, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389, 2010 WL 4075730
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Murphy v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 631
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 19, 2010·No. ED 94206·Published

Opinion

*92 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Oscar Murphy (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on appeal his claims that the trial court erred in failing to strike two members of the venire for cause.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

SULLIVAN, P.J., AHRENS J., and MOONEY, J. concur.

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

Murphy v. State, 323 S.W.3d 91, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1389, 2010 WL 4075730 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

323 S.W.3d 91 (Murphy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Johnson v. State
323 S.W.3d 91 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)