Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

129 S.W.3d 428, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2004 WL 434144

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1256 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 9, 2004·No. No. ED 82576·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Seneca Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleged his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview two exculpatory witnesses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would [429]*429have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Seneca Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleged his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to interview two exculpatory witnesses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would [429]*429have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Williams v. State, 129 S.W.3d 428, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 2004 WL 434144 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

129 S.W.3d 428 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.