Smith v. State

251 S.W.3d 387, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 573, 2008 WL 1866971
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1558
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 29, 2008·No. ED 89965·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daniel C. Smith (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the court clearly erred in denying his request for relief because counsel was ineffective, the trial court failed to sua sponte request a psychiatric exam, and he was sentenced in excess of the statutory maximum.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

Smith v. State, 251 S.W.3d 387, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 573, 2008 WL 1866971 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

251 S.W.3d 387 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.