Snyder v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snyder v. State

280 S.W.3d 792, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2009 WL 1054582

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2009

DocketED 91058

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 S.W.3d 792 (Snyder 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

Snyder v. State, 280 S.W.3d 792, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2009 WL 1054582 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert A. Snyder (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Montgomery County Circuit Court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to timely and adequately object to admissions of Movant’s incriminating statements to police and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to assert that the trial court erred in overruling a hearsay objection to the statements of non-testifying co-defendants on direct appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert A. Snyder (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Montgomery County Circuit Court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to timely and adequately object to admissions of Movant’s incriminating statements to police and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to assert that the trial court erred in overruling a hearsay objection to the statements of non-testifying co-defendants on direct appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 792, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 527, 2009 WL 1054582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack