Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

169 S.W.3d 897

Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 30, 2005

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2005-08-30

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2006

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-08-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2 Movant, Chadrick Taylor, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing.

¶3 The trial court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

/169/sw3d/897 · .json · Public domain