Neal v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Neal v. State

482 S.W.3d 472, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 2016 WL 720558

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102935

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 472 (Neal 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

Neal v. State, 482 S.W.3d 472, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 2016 WL 720558 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damion Neal (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the improper joinder of Movant’s offenses.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[473]*473We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damion Neal (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the improper joinder of Movant’s offenses.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[473]*473We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 472, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 158, 2016 WL 720558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-state-moctapp-2016.