Taylor v. State

449 S.W.3d 832, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1405, 2014 WL 7172001
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1049
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 16, 2014·No. No. ED 100848·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

William E. Taylor (Movant) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his amended motion based on a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective due to a conflict of interest and for failing to request a change of venue. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

Taylor v. State, 449 S.W.3d 832, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1405, 2014 WL 7172001 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

449 S.W.3d 832 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.