Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

568 S.W.3d 88

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106426

StatusPublished

This text of 568 S.W.3d 88 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 568 S.W.3d 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Timothy Wright appeals the denial following an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on a single allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. He contends the motion court clearly erred by denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call his wife, Tiffany Pulliam, as a trial witness, to testify that he was at their apartment between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on February 15, 2014. We disagree and affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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

PER CURIAM

Timothy Wright appeals the denial following an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on a single allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. He contends the motion court clearly erred by denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call his wife, Tiffany Pulliam, as a trial witness, to testify that he was at their apartment between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on February 15, 2014. We disagree and affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 S.W.3d 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-moctapp-2019.