Pampkin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pampkin v. State

477 S.W.3d 688, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2015 WL 8228145

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102326

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 688 (Pampkin 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

Pampkin v. State, 477 S.W.3d 688, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2015 WL 8228145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jimmie Pampkin (“Pampkin”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court, following an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion seeking to set aside his convictions for first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action. In his Rule 29.15 motion, Pampkin alleged, inter alia, in two sepa[689]*689rate claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress identification. On appeal, Pampkin contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress two witnesses' out-of-court and in-court identifications.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Jimmie Pampkin (“Pampkin”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court, following an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion seeking to set aside his convictions for first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action. In his Rule 29.15 motion, Pampkin alleged, inter alia, in two sepa[689]*689rate claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress identification. On appeal, Pampkin contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress two witnesses' out-of-court and in-court identifications.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 688, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1262, 2015 WL 8228145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pampkin-v-state-moctapp-2015.