Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003

Patterson v. State

Patterson v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided October 28, 2003 · Dowd, Gaertner, Russell
122 S.W.3d 645; 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1712; 2003 WL 22434144 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Patterson v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Patterson (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court erred in denying his postconviction motion because trial counsel was ineffective in failing (1) to call an alibi witness and (2) to contact, subpoena, and call the alibi witness. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. *646The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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