Shockley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shockley v. State

541 S.W.3d 52

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2018

DocketWD 80334

StatusPublished

This text of 541 S.W.3d 52 (Shockley 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

Shockley v. State, 541 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Shockley appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. In his sole point on appeal, he claims the evidence showed that if his counsel had investigated and presented relevant evidence that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of his case would have been different. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided *53to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Shockley appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. In his sole point on appeal, he claims the evidence showed that if his counsel had investigated and presented relevant evidence that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of his case would have been different. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided *53to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.3d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shockley-v-state-moctapp-2018.