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

Case: Reginald Cunningham, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, 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/reginald-cunningham-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-13471
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13471
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=Reginald+Cunningham%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%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)

---
## Opinion

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:  Reginald Cunningham, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  73376
Handdown Date:  09/22/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Brendan Ryan
Counsel for Appellant:  Elizabeth Haines
Counsel for Respondent:  Kenneth P. Ferguson
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Ahrens, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Reginald Cunningham (Movant) appeals from the judgment overruling his motion for post-conviction relief 
pursuant to Rule 24.035 after a hearing.  Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because 
his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his case and adequately consult with him. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is 
not clearly erroneous.  Rule 24.035(k).  An extended opinion would have no precedential value.  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).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.