Sanders v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sanders v. State

155 S.W.3d 804, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, 2005 WL 147431

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 25, 2005·No. No. ED 83956·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis W. Sanders appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. He contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call two witnesses who would have provided him a viable defense.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis W. Sanders appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. He contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call two witnesses who would have provided him a viable defense.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sanders v. State, 155 S.W.3d 804, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, 2005 WL 147431 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

155 S.W.3d 804 (Sanders v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.