Pierson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pierson v. State

85 S.W.3d 701, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 2002 WL 31056687

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 17, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80148

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 85 S.W.3d 701 (Pierson 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

Pierson v. State, 85 S.W.3d 701, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 2002 WL 31056687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Albert L. Pierson, III, Movant, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel (1) failed to investigate and introduce into evidence a family videotape, (2) failed to lo[702]*702cate and call witnesses, and (3) failed to timely endorse a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only 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.

Albert L. Pierson, III, Movant, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel (1) failed to investigate and introduce into evidence a family videotape, (2) failed to lo[702]*702cate and call witnesses, and (3) failed to timely endorse a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W.3d 701, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 2002 WL 31056687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierson-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack