Missouri Court of Appeals, 2002

Pierson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided September 17, 2002 · Dowd, Hoff, III

85 S.W.3d 701; 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880; 2002 WL 31056687 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Albert L. Pierson v. Dave Dormire (8th Cir. 2007)
Albert Pierson v. Dave Dormire (8th Cir. 2007)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Albert L. Pierson, III, Movant, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because his trial counsel (1) failed to investigate and introduce into evidence a family videotape, (2) failed to lo*702cate and call witnesses, and (3) failed to timely endorse a witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.