Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

157 S.W.3d 760, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 380, 2005 WL 589607

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84776

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 760 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 157 S.W.3d 760, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 380, 2005 WL 589607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clattee Williams, Jr. (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to make a specific objection to the submission of the verdict directing instruction for the charge of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Clattee Williams, Jr. (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to make a specific objection to the submission of the verdict directing instruction for the charge of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 760, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 380, 2005 WL 589607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-2005.