Watts v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watts v. State

77 S.W.3d 52, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224, 2002 WL 1163014

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 4, 2002·No. No. ED 80217·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Kimmie Watts, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo 2000. State v. Watts, 30 S.W.3d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion 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.

Movant, Kimmie Watts, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 195.211, RSMo 2000. State v. Watts, 30 S.W.3d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). He now contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Watts v. State, 77 S.W.3d 52, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224, 2002 WL 1163014 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

77 S.W.3d 52 (Watts v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related