Scott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Scott v. State

353 S.W.3d 683, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2011 WL 5864655

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

DocketED 96652

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 683 (Scott v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. State, 353 S.W.3d 683, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2011 WL 5864655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacob Scott (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he stated a claim not refuted by the record that plea counsel was ineffective *684 in failing to investigate: (1) potential alibi witnesses; and (2) an incident in which the victim allegedly shot Movant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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.

Jacob Scott (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he stated a claim not refuted by the record that plea counsel was ineffective *684 in failing to investigate: (1) potential alibi witnesses; and (2) an incident in which the victim allegedly shot Movant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 683, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2011 WL 5864655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-moctapp-2011.