Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hennings v. State

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Third Division

September 16, 2014

SAUNDRA HENNINGS, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Hon. John F. Garvey, Jr.

FOR APPELLANT: Amanda P. Faerber, St. Louis, MO.

FOR RESPONDENT: Chris Koster, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., JJ.

OPINION

Page 201

ORDER

Per Curiam.

Saundra Hennings (" Movant" ) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because her plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Movant that the victim's prior inconsistent statements could have been used to impeach him at trial and additionally could have been admitted as substantive evidence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.