Shields v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shields v. State

476 S.W.3d 305, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1009, 2015 WL 5824340

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102063

StatusPublished

This text of 476 S.W.3d 305 (Shields 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

Shields v. State, 476 S.W.3d 305, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1009, 2015 WL 5824340 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Shields (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial of his pro se “Re-Open Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and a Amended Motion Due to Abandonment of Counsel.” Movant raises multiple arguments regarding abandonment of trial counsel and post-conviction appellate counsel, as well as his entitlement to a Rule 29.15 evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Shields (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial of his pro se “Re-Open Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and a Amended Motion Due to Abandonment of Counsel.” Movant raises multiple arguments regarding abandonment of trial counsel and post-conviction appellate counsel, as well as his entitlement to a Rule 29.15 evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 305, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1009, 2015 WL 5824340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shields-v-state-moctapp-2015.