Case ID: sw2d_928/html/0014-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fate MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 69983.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 3, 1996.
    David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In his Rule 24.035 motion, Movant alleges his trial counsel failed to investigate and discuss potential witnesses and the potential outcome of his case if it went to trial. The motion court denied his motion without a hearing. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).