Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

183 S.W.3d 307, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2006 WL 278994

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2006

DocketNo. ED 85896

StatusPublished

This text of 183 S.W.3d 307 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 183 S.W.3d 307, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2006 WL 278994 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Arthur E. Taylor, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for fading to strike Venire-person Linda Butler, and (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for fading to raise on appeal the trial court’s denial of Mov-ant’s motion to suppress his statements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Arthur E. Taylor, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for fading to strike Venire-person Linda Butler, and (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for fading to raise on appeal the trial court’s denial of Mov-ant’s motion to suppress his statements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.W.3d 307, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 141, 2006 WL 278994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2006.