Skaggs v. State

33 S.W.3d 596, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2000 WL 1576963
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Skaggs v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 116
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2000·No. No. ED 77283·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Skaggs (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his motion for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 29.15.1 Movant claims ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Skaggs v. State, 33 S.W.3d 596, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568, 2000 WL 1576963 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

33 S.W.3d 596 (Skaggs v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.