State v. Scott

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Scott

236 S.W.3d 122, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453, 2007 WL 3071555

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

DocketED 89066

StatusPublished

This text of 236 S.W.3d 122 (State v. Scott) 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. Scott, 236 S.W.3d 122, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453, 2007 WL 3071555 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment in the St. Louis County Circuit Court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief.

In Movant’s sole point on appeal, he contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of statements, evidence and arguments about a confidential informant’s tip to the police and, for eliciting testimony about the informant’s tip and referring to the tip in her closing arguments. Movant claims that trial counsel’s ineffective assistance resulted in Movant being deprived of his confrontation rights and the jury being presented with hearsay evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment in the St. Louis County Circuit Court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief.

In Movant’s sole point on appeal, he contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of statements, evidence and arguments about a confidential informant’s tip to the police and, for eliciting testimony about the informant’s tip and referring to the tip in her closing arguments. Movant claims that trial counsel’s ineffective assistance resulted in Movant being deprived of his confrontation rights and the jury being presented with hearsay evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.3d 122, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1453, 2007 WL 3071555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scott-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack