Straub v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Straub v. State

161 S.W.3d 892, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2005 WL 894606

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84385

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.W.3d 892 (Straub 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

Straub v. State, 161 S.W.3d 892, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2005 WL 894606 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Straub appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying his Rule [893]*89329.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We affirmed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance on the premises of a correctional institution on direct appeal. State v. Straub, 97 S.W.3d 537 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). He now argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that it was ultimately his decision to testify at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Kevin Straub appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying his Rule [893]*89329.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We affirmed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance on the premises of a correctional institution on direct appeal. State v. Straub, 97 S.W.3d 537 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). He now argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that it was ultimately his decision to testify at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.W.3d 892, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2005 WL 894606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/straub-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack