Pierson v. State

85 S.W.3d 701, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 2002 WL 31056687
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 17, 2002·No. No. ED 80148·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

85 S.W.3d 701 (Pierson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Albert Pierson v. Dave Dormire
Eighth Circuit, 2007
Albert L. Pierson v. Dave Dormire
484 F.3d 486 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)