Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

424 S.W.3d 465, 2014 WL 931072, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 278

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Young v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1109 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 11, 2014·No. No. ED 99864·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Latrail R. Young appeals from the motion court’s “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment” denying his Rule 29.15 “Amended Motion to Vacate Judgments and Sentences and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing,” alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Latrail R. Young appeals from the motion court’s “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment” denying his Rule 29.15 “Amended Motion to Vacate Judgments and Sentences and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing,” alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

Young v. State, 424 S.W.3d 465, 2014 WL 931072, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 278 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

424 S.W.3d 465 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.