From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lacastro v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Feb 13, 2001
36 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED 77920

February 13, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, HONORABLE LUCY RAUCH

Douglas R. Hoff, St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Susan K. Glass, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

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

ORDER



Dominic Lacastro (hereinafter "Appellant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion for a speedy trial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The motion court's ruling was based upon findings and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only explaining the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Lacastro v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Feb 13, 2001
36 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Lacastro v. State

Case Details

Full title:DOMINIC LACASTRO, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2001

Citations

36 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)