Skaggs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Skaggs v. State

136 S.W.3d 845, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2004 WL 1381109

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 22, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83360

StatusPublished

This text of 136 S.W.3d 845 (Skaggs 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

Skaggs v. State, 136 S.W.3d 845, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2004 WL 1381109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Howard Skaggs appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for forgery and escape from confinement in violation of sections 570.090.1 and 575.210, RSMo 2000, respectively. State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). He now contends that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in that she had an actual conflict of interest.

[846]*846Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Howard Skaggs appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed his convictions for forgery and escape from confinement in violation of sections 570.090.1 and 575.210, RSMo 2000, respectively. State v. Skaggs, 74 S.W.3d 282 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). He now contends that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in that she had an actual conflict of interest.

[846]*846Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.W.3d 845, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2004 WL 1381109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skaggs-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack