Short v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Short v. State

241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2007 WL 4390661

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

DocketED 89537

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.W.3d 419 (Short 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

Short v. State, 241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2007 WL 4390661 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*420 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Short (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to submit a jury instruction on second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, (2) to call Movant to testify at his suppression hearing, and (3) to object to the State’s multiple playing of the videotaped reenactment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

*420 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Short (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to submit a jury instruction on second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, (2) to call Movant to testify at his suppression hearing, and (3) to object to the State’s multiple playing of the videotaped reenactment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 2007 WL 4390661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/short-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack