State v. Crews

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Crews

959 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 277

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

DocketNos. WD 52579, WD 54254, WD 54280

StatusPublished

This text of 959 S.W.2d 958 (State v. Crews) 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

State v. Crews, 959 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 277 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tony L. Crews appeals his convictions for trafficking in the second degree and resisting arrest, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes. Mr. Crews failed to preserve this point for review by objecting at trial, and we find no plain error on the facts of this case. Mr. Crews also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file, a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Assuming trial counsel erred in failing to do so, the facts in this case show that this error could not have affected the outcome of the case. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order and have supplied the parties with a memorandum setting forth our reasoning. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tony L. Crews appeals his convictions for trafficking in the second degree and resisting arrest, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes. Mr. Crews failed to preserve this point for review by objecting at trial, and we find no plain error on the facts of this case. Mr. Crews also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file, a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Assuming trial counsel erred in failing to do so, the facts in this case show that this error could not have affected the outcome of the case. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order and have supplied the parties with a memorandum setting forth our reasoning. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

959 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crews-moctapp-1998.