Sandfort v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sandfort v. State

226 S.W.3d 921, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 980, 2007 WL 1853321

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 2007·No. No. WD 67187·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Sandfort appeals the denial after an evidentiary hearing of his Rule [922]*92229.15 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value, but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Sandfort appeals the denial after an evidentiary hearing of his Rule [922]*92229.15 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value, but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Sandfort v. State, 226 S.W.3d 921, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 980, 2007 WL 1853321 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

226 S.W.3d 921 (Sandfort v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.