Stuerman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stuerman v. State

393 S.W.3d 143, 2013 WL 816085, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 272

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 5, 2013·No. No. ED 98137·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Stuerman (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. Timothy Kutz as a witness at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

David Stuerman (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. Timothy Kutz as a witness at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Stuerman v. State, 393 S.W.3d 143, 2013 WL 816085, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

393 S.W.3d 143 (Stuerman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.