Reed v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reed v. State

518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255239, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 476

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104445

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 901 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255239, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carnell Reed (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the court’s judgment violated his right to effective assistance of counsel, right to due process of law, right to a fair trial, and right to access the courts because the record does not conclusively refute his claim that appellate counsel unreasonably did not challenge the court’s pretrial competency determination on appeal, and there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s determination such that, if raised, there would have been a reasonable probability of a different result. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carnell Reed (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the court’s judgment violated his right to effective assistance of counsel, right to due process of law, right to a fair trial, and right to access the courts because the record does not conclusively refute his claim that appellate counsel unreasonably did not challenge the court’s pretrial competency determination on appeal, and there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s determination such that, if raised, there would have been a reasonable probability of a different result. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255239, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-moctapp-2017.