Pennell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pennell v. State

485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 2016 WL 1221733

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102182

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.W.3d 392 (Pennell 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

Pennell v. State, 485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 2016 WL 1221733 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Michael M. Pennell appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary, hearing. Pennell alleges two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: 1) appellate counsel failed to argue that there was insufficient evidence to establish that what he delivered was a controlled substance; and 2) trial counsel was ineffective by eliciting evidence regarding the police’s investigation into Pen-nell prior to his arrest in the' underlying criminal case. Finding no clear error, we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are- not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Michael M. Pennell appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary, hearing. Pennell alleges two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: 1) appellate counsel failed to argue that there was insufficient evidence to establish that what he delivered was a controlled substance; and 2) trial counsel was ineffective by eliciting evidence regarding the police’s investigation into Pen-nell prior to his arrest in the' underlying criminal case. Finding no clear error, we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are- not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 S.W.3d 392, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 2016 WL 1221733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennell-v-state-moctapp-2016.