Pullum v. State
358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, 2012 WL 454637
Opinion
ORDER
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
Pullum v. State, 358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, 2012 WL 454637 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
358 S.W.3d 587 (Pullum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Scott v. State
358 S.W.3d 587 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)