Washington v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Washington v. State

482 S.W.3d 473, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2016 WL 720569

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102894

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 473 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 482 S.W.3d 473, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2016 WL 720569 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Washington (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because Movant’s trial counsel failed to present evidence of Movant’s mental health status and cognitive limitations in support of his motion to suppress statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only; setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Thomas Washington (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because Movant’s trial counsel failed to present evidence of Movant’s mental health status and cognitive limitations in support of his motion to suppress statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only; setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 473, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 156, 2016 WL 720569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-moctapp-2016.