Smith v. State

335 S.W.3d 576, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 331, 2011 WL 899658
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 15, 2011·No. ED 94278·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joshum Smith (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. Movant asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because appellate counsel voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the *577 motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties 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

Smith v. State, 335 S.W.3d 576, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 331, 2011 WL 899658 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

335 S.W.3d 576 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Treadway
335 S.W.3d 576 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)