Parish v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Parish v. State

495 S.W.3d 788, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, 2016 WL 3688796

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 12, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102913

StatusPublished

This text of 495 S.W.3d 788 (Parish 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

Parish v. State, 495 S.W.3d 788, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, 2016 WL 3688796 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Phillip Parish (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because his counsel was ineffective for: 1) failing to properly investigate certain witnesses; and/or 2) misleading him as to the results of that investigation.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. 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

Phillip Parish (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because his counsel was ineffective for: 1) failing to properly investigate certain witnesses; and/or 2) misleading him as to the results of that investigation.

We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. 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)

495 S.W.3d 788, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, 2016 WL 3688796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parish-v-state-moctapp-2016.