From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bexten v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
Aug 7, 2001
51 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED 78588

August 7, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OSAGE COUNTY, HONORABLE JEFF W. SCHAEPERKOETTER.

Mark A. Grothoff, 3402 Buttonwood, Columbia, MO 65201-3724, for appellant.

John Munson Morris III, Lisa Sutherland, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899, for respondent.

Before: George W. Draper III, P.J., Mary R. Russell, J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.



ORDER


William Bexten, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant's conviction for felony driving while intoxicated in violation of section 577.010, RSMo 2000. State v. Bexten, 2 S.W.3d 852 (Mo.App. 1999). He now argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise two valid issues in a motion for new trial.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Bexten v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
Aug 7, 2001
51 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Bexten v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM BEXTEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

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

Date published: Aug 7, 2001

Citations

51 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)