Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

455 S.W.3d 476, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 140, 2015 WL 672694

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wright v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1224 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 2015·No. No. ED 101058·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shante Wright appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary, hearing. Wright argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to testify in his own defense. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shante Wright appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary, hearing. Wright argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to testify in his own defense. We find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

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).

Wright v. State, 455 S.W.3d 476, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 140, 2015 WL 672694 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

455 S.W.3d 476 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.