Verive v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Verive v. State

474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1117, 2015 WL 6689357

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 3, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102134

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 220 (Verive 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

Verive v. State, 474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1117, 2015 WL 6689357 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Verive ( Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County denying his Rule 24.035, motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to provide Movant with discovery, and (2) failing to contact two witnesses.

We find the motion court's findings,of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedehtial 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.

Joseph Verive ( Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pike County denying his Rule 24.035, motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his motion because plea counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to provide Movant with discovery, and (2) failing to contact two witnesses.

We find the motion court's findings,of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedehtial 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)

474 S.W.3d 220, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1117, 2015 WL 6689357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/verive-v-state-moctapp-2015.