White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

331 S.W.3d 742, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2011 WL 690613

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 2011

DocketWD 71442

StatusPublished

This text of 331 S.W.3d 742 (White 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

White v. State, 331 S.W.3d 742, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2011 WL 690613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Brandon White was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance near schools and sentenced to two fifteen-year terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently. In this post-conviction relief proceeding brought pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15, White argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine two of the . State’s witnesses concerning an agreement between the State’s principal fact witness and prosecutors concerning the disposition of charges pending against the witness. White also argues that the State unlawfully failed to disclose the agreement. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Brandon White was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance near schools and sentenced to two fifteen-year terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently. In this post-conviction relief proceeding brought pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15, White argues that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine two of the . State’s witnesses concerning an agreement between the State’s principal fact witness and prosecutors concerning the disposition of charges pending against the witness. White also argues that the State unlawfully failed to disclose the agreement. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 742, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2011 WL 690613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2011.