White v. State
Opinion
ORDER
George White (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing because his plea counsel was ineffective for unreasonably failing to [525] present mitigating evidence to the court during sentencing.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
406 S.W.3d 524 (White v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.