Upchurch v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Upchurch v. State

487 S.W.3d 502, 2016 WL 1578969, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 360

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102871

StatusPublished

This text of 487 S.W.3d 502 (Upchurch 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

Upchurch v. State, 487 S.W.3d 502, 2016 WL 1578969, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Artez Upchurch (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant claims that the motion court erred by denying his post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call both Movant’s mother and the victim as witnesses. Movant contends that if counsel would have investigated and called these two individuals as witnesses, Movant would not have pleaded guilty. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Artez Upchurch (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant claims that the motion court erred by denying his post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call both Movant’s mother and the victim as witnesses. Movant contends that if counsel would have investigated and called these two individuals as witnesses, Movant would not have pleaded guilty. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.3d 502, 2016 WL 1578969, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upchurch-v-state-moctapp-2016.