From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Duke v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Mar 20, 2001
42 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED78173

Opinion Filed: March 20, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, HONORABLE THOMAS BROWN III

Stephen J. Harris, 3402 Buttonwood, Mark A. Grothoff, St Louis, MO 65201, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty.Gen., Box 899, John M. Morris, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO 65102, Lisa Sutherland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and Mary Rhodes Russell and Richard B. Teitelman, JJ.



ORDER


Michael W. Duke (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Movant contends the motion court erred (1) in denying his postconviction motion because Movant's trial counsel was ineffective in his failure to call Movant's mother and Barbara Yarbough whose testimony would have established justification for Movant's actions, and (2) in failing to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each claim, thereby depriving Movant of the opportunity for meaningful appellate review. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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).


Summaries of

Duke v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Mar 20, 2001
42 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Duke v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL W. DUKE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 20, 2001

Citations

42 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)