Nettles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nettles v. State

558 S.W.3d 603

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 9, 2018·No. No. ED 105894·Published

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.

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

Pincite

558 S.W.3d 603 (Nettles v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.