From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
Feb 26, 2002
69 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. ED 79558.

February 26, 2002.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Emmett M. O'Brien, Judge.

Jennifer S. Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Edgington, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence G. Crahan, J., and Lawrence E. Mooney, J.



ORDER


Samuel Martin (Movant) appeals from a judgment denying his request for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2001, unless otherwise indicated.


Summaries of

Martin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four
Feb 26, 2002
69 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Martin v. State

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL MARTIN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four

Date published: Feb 26, 2002

Citations

69 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Martin v. State

Martin v. State, No. 2100CC-03466 (21st Jud. Cir. filed Sept. 20, 2000); Martin v. State, 69 S.W.3d 142…

Martin v. Kemna

The PCR motion was denied, and that denial was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals on February 26,…