Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 S.W.3d 453

Tinker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 17, 2001

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2001-04-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2003

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-04-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Bennie Tinker, movant, appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. On appeal, movant contends that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because counsel failed to raise the issue of the prosecutor’s question at trial regarding movant’s failure to make a written statement, and had appellate counsel raised error, the appellate court would have reversed movant’s conviction.

¶3We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

/43/sw3d/453 · .json · Public domain