Nettles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nettles v. State

558 S.W.3d 603

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105894

StatusPublished

This text of 558 S.W.3d 603 (Nettles 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

Nettles v. State, 558 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Nettles ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 *604motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant's sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit to the prior uncharged bad act of striking J.J. and counsel conceding in his opening statement that Movant struck J.J. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under to Rule 84.16.

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

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Nettles ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 *604motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant's sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to admit to the prior uncharged bad act of striking J.J. and counsel conceding in his opening statement that Movant struck J.J. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under to Rule 84.16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

558 S.W.3d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nettles-v-state-moctapp-2018.