Case ID: sw3d_559/html/0423-01.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

Ronald L. ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 106125
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    FILED: October 23, 2018
    Kristina Starke Olson, 1010 Market St., Ste 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
    Joshua Hawley, Evan J. Buchheim, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
    Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM

Ronald L. Allen ("Allen") appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Allen argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress drug evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that lacked probable cause. Because the record reflects that probable cause supported the search warrant, a motion to suppress would have been meritless. We will not hold trial counsel ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion, and therefore Allen is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).