Reed v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reed v. State

544 S.W.3d 702

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105374

StatusPublished

This text of 544 S.W.3d 702 (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, 544 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*703Joe Reed ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closure of the courtroom during a portion of Movant's trial, and failing to object to witness testimony on grounds of hearsay, confrontation, and uncharged bad acts. 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

PER CURIAM.

*703Joe Reed ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closure of the courtroom during a portion of Movant's trial, and failing to object to witness testimony on grounds of hearsay, confrontation, and uncharged bad acts. 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)

544 S.W.3d 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-moctapp-2018.