Woods v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

84 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1828, 2002 WL 2004869

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 3, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80377

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.W.3d 499 (Woods 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

Woods v. State, 84 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1828, 2002 WL 2004869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Will Woods (Appellant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. We previously affirmed Appellant’s conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo (2000). State v. Woods, 9 S.W.3d 634 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). We also previously reversed and remanded the order dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion as untimely. Woods v. State, 53 S.W.3d 587 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). Appellant now contends the trial court erred in denying his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately impeach two of the State’s witnesses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Will Woods (Appellant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. We previously affirmed Appellant’s conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo (2000). State v. Woods, 9 S.W.3d 634 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). We also previously reversed and remanded the order dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion as untimely. Woods v. State, 53 S.W.3d 587 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). Appellant now contends the trial court erred in denying his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately impeach two of the State’s witnesses.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W.3d 499, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1828, 2002 WL 2004869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack