Robinson v. State
Opinion
*161 ORDER
Stanley Robinson (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he alleged facts unrefuted by the record that warranted relief. Movant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a hearing on a motion to suppress identification and in failing to object to testimony regarding the out-of-court identifications made by the victim and her boyfriend.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
303 S.W.3d 160 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.