Robinson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Robinson v. State

785 S.W.2d 724, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, 1990 WL 9619

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

DocketNo. 56292

StatusPublished

This text of 785 S.W.2d 724 (Robinson 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

Robinson v. State, 785 S.W.2d 724, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, 1990 WL 9619 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

[725]*725ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Hallie Robinson, was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery and received fifteen years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender. Appellant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Robinson, 735 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). Appellant now appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s alleged failure to allow appellant to testify at trial. We have reviewed this allegation and the entirety of the record on which it is based and we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[725]*725ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Hallie Robinson, was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery and received fifteen years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender. Appellant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Robinson, 735 S.W.2d 80 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). Appellant now appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s alleged failure to allow appellant to testify at trial. We have reviewed this allegation and the entirety of the record on which it is based and we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 S.W.2d 724, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 206, 1990 WL 9619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-state-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack