Tolbert v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tolbert v. State

518 S.W.3d 288, 2017 WL 2118619, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 418

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103584

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 288 (Tolbert 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

Tolbert v. State, 518 S.W.3d 288, 2017 WL 2118619, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 418 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Tolbert (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises one point on appeal, arguing the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.025 without an evidentiary hearing because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant and the victims as witnesses at the suppression hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eduardo Tolbert (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises one point on appeal, arguing the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.025 without an evidentiary hearing because defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call Movant and the victims as witnesses at the suppression hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 288, 2017 WL 2118619, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tolbert-v-state-moctapp-2017.