Case Name: Fate MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-09-03
Citations: 928 S.W.2d 14
Docket Number: No. 69983
Parties: Fate MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 928
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 in formation only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).