Russell v. State

223 S.W.3d 221, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 819, 2007 WL 1575010
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Russell v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 367
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 29, 2007·No. WD 66803·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Walter Russell appeals from the motion court’s order overruling, after an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, the appellant was convicted of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, in violation of § 217.360, and sentenced to a term of fifteen years in the Missouri Department of Corrections, to be served consecutively with the prison sentences he was already serving.

The appellant raises one point on appeal. He claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing, because the findings and conclusions of the motion court, in denying his motion, that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel’s stipulating at trial that the substance, with which he was charged with possessing illegally, was marijuana, are clearly erroneous.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Russell v. State, 223 S.W.3d 221, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 819, 2007 WL 1575010 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

223 S.W.3d 221 (Russell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.