State v. Nichols

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nichols

915 S.W.2d 795, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 250, 1996 WL 69373

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

DocketNo. WD 48619

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 915 S.W.2d 795 (State v. Nichols) 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. Nichols, 915 S.W.2d 795, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 250, 1996 WL 69373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jabbar Nichols appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of first degree murder, second degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. He complains that the circuit court denied his motion to suppress the state’s evidence obtained during his arrest. He also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion [796]*796for posteonviction relief in which he accused his trial attorney of incompetence for failing to object to the state’s cross-examination concerning his flight from a halfway house. We affirm. Because we do not discern any jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). We have issued a memorandum to the parties explaining our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jabbar Nichols appeals the circuit court’s judgment convicting him of first degree murder, second degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. He complains that the circuit court denied his motion to suppress the state’s evidence obtained during his arrest. He also appeals the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion [796]*796for posteonviction relief in which he accused his trial attorney of incompetence for failing to object to the state’s cross-examination concerning his flight from a halfway house. We affirm. Because we do not discern any jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). We have issued a memorandum to the parties explaining our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

915 S.W.2d 795, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 250, 1996 WL 69373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nichols-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack