Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

184 S.W.3d 135, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 162, 2006 WL 328148

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1897 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 14, 2006·No. No. ED 85953·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Torobereja Thomas (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his request for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15¹ following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Torobereja Thomas (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his request for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15¹ following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Thomas v. State, 184 S.W.3d 135, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 162, 2006 WL 328148 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

184 S.W.3d 135 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.