Pullum v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pullum v. State

358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, 2012 WL 454637

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 96752

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 587 (Pullum 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

Pullum v. State, 358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, 2012 WL 454637 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Pullura appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Pullum argues he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. We find that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Pullura appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Pullum argues he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. We find that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, 2012 WL 454637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullum-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack