OSTERDYK v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

OSTERDYK v. State

262 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2008 WL 3899782

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 26, 2008

DocketED 90354

StatusPublished

This text of 262 S.W.3d 263 (OSTERDYK 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

OSTERDYK v. State, 262 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2008 WL 3899782 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Osterdyk (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that plea counsel David Shaller provided ineffective assistance of counsel by fading to: (1) investigate expert witness testimony; (2) investigate non-expert witness testimony; and (3) adequately inform Movant of the nature and consequences of the plea that he was entering.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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.

We 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.

Brian Osterdyk (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that plea counsel David Shaller provided ineffective assistance of counsel by fading to: (1) investigate expert witness testimony; (2) investigate non-expert witness testimony; and (3) adequately inform Movant of the nature and consequences of the plea that he was entering.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2008 WL 3899782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osterdyk-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack