Waites v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waites v. State

350 S.W.3d 859, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2011 WL 4944497

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2011

DocketED 95580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 S.W.3d 859 (Waites 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

Waites v. State, 350 S.W.3d 859, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2011 WL 4944497 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demont Waites (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Twanna Reece, Celestine Reece, Debra Waites, and Edward Johnson as witnesses at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance ■with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Demont Waites (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant asserts the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Twanna Reece, Celestine Reece, Debra Waites, and Edward Johnson as witnesses at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance ■with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.3d 859, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1344, 2011 WL 4944497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waites-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack