Reeder v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reeder v. State

261 S.W.3d 619, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 821, 2008 WL 2420748

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 2008

DocketED 89852

StatusPublished

This text of 261 S.W.3d 619 (Reeder 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

Reeder v. State, 261 S.W.3d 619, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 821, 2008 WL 2420748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Reeder appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Reeder argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. Reeder also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial, and for failing to present evidence during the guilty phase of his trial. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

1

. All references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2008).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie Reeder appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Reeder argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial. Reeder also contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence during the sentencing phase of his trial, and for failing to present evidence during the guilty phase of his trial. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

1

. All references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2008).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.3d 619, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 821, 2008 WL 2420748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeder-v-state-moctapp-2008.