White v. State

331 S.W.3d 742, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2011 WL 690613
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in White v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1147
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 1, 2011·No. WD 71442·Published

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

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

331 S.W.3d 742 (White v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.