Paden v. State
298 S.W.3d 119, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1280, 2009 WL 2922846
Opinion
ORDER
Jermaine Paden appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Paden claims that the circuit court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.
The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Paden v. State, 298 S.W.3d 119, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1280, 2009 WL 2922846 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
298 S.W.3d 119 (Paden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Robinson
298 S.W.3d 119 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
State v. Paden
204 S.W.3d 753 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)