RUES v. State
254 S.W.3d 113, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 392, 2008 WL 762291
Opinion
ORDER
Mr. James P. Rues appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective.
*114 For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RUES v. State, 254 S.W.3d 113, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 392, 2008 WL 762291 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
254 S.W.3d 113 (RUES v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Norman v. State
254 S.W.3d 113 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)