Case ID: sw3d_132/html/0337-01.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

Stanley Wayne BLANKENSHIP, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 62946.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    May 4, 2004.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Andrea K. Spillars, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before SPINDEN, P.J., HOLLIGER and HARDWICK, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Blankenship appeals the denial of his Ride 29.15 motion following an evi-dentiary hearing. He contends his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to assert the doctrine of destructive contradictions on direct appeal. Upon review of the review of the record, we find no error in the motion court’s determination and affirm the judgment. The parties have been provided with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).