Strong v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Strong v. State

565 S.W.3d 253

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 2019

DocketNo. ED 105928

StatusPublished

This text of 565 S.W.3d 253 (Strong 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

Strong v. State, 565 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Strong ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and finding that Movant failed to demonstrate that his plea counsel was ineffective. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Strong ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and finding that Movant failed to demonstrate that his plea counsel was ineffective. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 S.W.3d 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-state-moctapp-2019.