Rash v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rash v. State

150 S.W.3d 127, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1747, 2004 WL 2586415

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83919

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.W.3d 127 (Rash 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

Rash v. State, 150 S.W.3d 127, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1747, 2004 WL 2586415 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dedric L. Rash (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Previously we affirmed Movant’s convictions of attempted kidnapping, sections 564.011and 565.110 RSMo 2000¹ and robbery in the second degree, section 569.030. State v. Rash, 89 S.W.3d 526 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Movant now contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of telephone records without a proper foundation to establish their authenticity.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dedric L. Rash (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Previously we affirmed Movant’s convictions of attempted kidnapping, sections 564.011and 565.110 RSMo 2000¹ and robbery in the second degree, section 569.030. State v. Rash, 89 S.W.3d 526 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Movant now contends his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of telephone records without a proper foundation to establish their authenticity.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.W.3d 127, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1747, 2004 WL 2586415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rash-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack