Reed v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reed v. State

544 S.W.3d 702

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 2018·No. No. ED 105374·Published

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).

Reed v. State, 544 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

544 S.W.3d 702 (Reed v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.