Vaughn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vaughn v. State

157 S.W.3d 779, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, 2005 WL 589810

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

DocketED 84242

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 779 (Vaughn 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

Vaughn v. State, 157 S.W.3d 779, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, 2005 WL 589810 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Vaughn appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. He alleged his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate two potential defenses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Kenneth Vaughn appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. He alleged his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate two potential defenses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 779, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, 2005 WL 589810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-state-moctapp-2005.