Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Ike Crawford, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ike-crawford-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-16609
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16609
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Ike+Crawford%2C+Movant-Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Syllabus

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Ike Crawford, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 70751
Handdown Date:  05/27/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. John J. Riley
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam.
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.
Opinion:

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and James R. Reinhard and Gary M. Gaertner, JJ.
ORDER

---

## PER CURIAM.

Ike Crawford (Movant) appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-
conviction relief.  He alleges the motion court erred when it found that 1)trial counsel was not ineffective and 
2)that motion counsel did not abandon him.  We affirm.  An extended opinion would have no precedential 
value.  The parties have been furnished with a memorandum detailing our reasons for affirming the judgment of 
the trial court.  Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.