Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Paden v. State

Paden v. State

298 S.W.3d 119, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1280, 2009 WL 2922846
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 15, 2009
DocketWD 69750
StatusPublished

This text of 298 S.W.3d 119 (Paden 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
Paden v. State, 298 S.W.3d 119, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1280, 2009 WL 2922846 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 S.W.3d 119, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1280, 2009 WL 2922846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paden-v-state-moctapp-2009.