White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

515 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 1323905, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 284

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104329

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 838 (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, 515 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 1323905, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 284 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Rodney E. White appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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

Rodney E. White appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 1323905, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2017.