Pendleton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pendleton v. State

260 S.W.3d 928, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1178, 2008 WL 4058089

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 2, 2008·No. ED 89956·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Michael Pendleton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call a certain witness to testify at his criminal trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for *929 this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Michael Pendleton, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call a certain witness to testify at his criminal trial.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for *929 this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Pendleton v. State, 260 S.W.3d 928, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1178, 2008 WL 4058089 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

260 S.W.3d 928 (Pendleton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.