Weaver v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Weaver v. State

313 S.W.3d 730, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2010 WL 2483274

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 22, 2010

DocketWD 70682

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 S.W.3d 730 (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, 313 S.W.3d 730, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2010 WL 2483274 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jerloin Weaver appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Weaver claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in that he failed to file a motion to suppress or present evidence in support of a motion to suppress. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jerloin Weaver appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Weaver claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in that he failed to file a motion to suppress or present evidence in support of a motion to suppress. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.W.3d 730, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 870, 2010 WL 2483274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack