State v. Nixon

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nixon

164 S.W.3d 62, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 472, 2005 WL 701655

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2005

DocketNo. ED 60834-01

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.W.3d 62 (State v. Nixon) 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. Nixon, 164 S.W.3d 62, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 472, 2005 WL 701655 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Ray Nixon’s (“Movant”) judgment and sentence and the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief were affirmed in a consolidated appeal styled State v. Nixon, 858 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App.1993). He filed a motion to recall the mandate and we granted the motion “to address the merits of [Movant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined Movant’s claim to be without merit. An extended opinion would be of no prece-[63]*63dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion, for their use only, explaining the reasons for our decision. The judgment, sentence and denial of post-conviction relief are affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Ray Nixon’s (“Movant”) judgment and sentence and the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief were affirmed in a consolidated appeal styled State v. Nixon, 858 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App.1993). He filed a motion to recall the mandate and we granted the motion “to address the merits of [Movant’s] claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined Movant’s claim to be without merit. An extended opinion would be of no prece-[63]*63dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion, for their use only, explaining the reasons for our decision. The judgment, sentence and denial of post-conviction relief are affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.W.3d 62, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 472, 2005 WL 701655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nixon-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack