Weaver v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Weaver v. State

265 S.W.3d 901, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1383, 2008 WL 4547508

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 2008

DocketWD 68664

StatusPublished

This text of 265 S.W.3d 901 (Weaver 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

Weaver v. State, 265 S.W.3d 901, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1383, 2008 WL 4547508 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christie D. Weaver (hereinafter Weaver) appeals the circuit court’s denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Weaver argues that plea counsel should have called two additional witnesses to help establish that coercion by Charles Villines (Villines) led her to commit the acts leading to her convictions. Having carefully considered Weaver’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Christie D. Weaver (hereinafter Weaver) appeals the circuit court’s denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Weaver argues that plea counsel should have called two additional witnesses to help establish that coercion by Charles Villines (Villines) led her to commit the acts leading to her convictions. Having carefully considered Weaver’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 S.W.3d 901, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1383, 2008 WL 4547508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack