Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

568 S.W.3d 88

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2019·No. No. ED 106426·Published

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).

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

Pincite

568 S.W.3d 88 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.