Vinson v. State

157 S.W.3d 367, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2005 WL 465895
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 1, 2005
DocketED 84306
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 367 (Vinson 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
Vinson v. State, 157 S.W.3d 367, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2005 WL 465895 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elgin Vinson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The motion court found that counsel’s testimony was credible and that it refuted Vinson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Vinson argues that counsel’s testimony supported, rather than refuted, his claim.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

Danzig v. Group Benefit Services, Inc.
157 S.W.3d 367 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 S.W.3d 367, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2005 WL 465895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinson-v-state-moctapp-2005.