ABDELMALIK v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

ABDELMALIK v. State

347 S.W.3d 563, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2011 WL 2534358

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 2011

DocketWD 72235

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 563 (ABDELMALIK v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ABDELMALIK v. State, 347 S.W.3d 563, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2011 WL 2534358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Dawud Abdelmalik appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing by the Circuit Court of Jackson County (“motion court”). On appeal, he claims that the motion court erred in determining that his trial counsel (“Counsel”) was not constitutionally ineffective in failing to raise claims that: (1) Abdelmalik’s second trial was in violation of the double-jeopardy protections in the United States and Missouri Constitutions; and (2) section 650.055 RSMo, as applied to the collection of Ab-delmalik’s DNA sample, violates the Missouri Constitution’s prohibition against laws that operate retrospectively. We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order

PER CURIAM:

Dawud Abdelmalik appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing by the Circuit Court of Jackson County (“motion court”). On appeal, he claims that the motion court erred in determining that his trial counsel (“Counsel”) was not constitutionally ineffective in failing to raise claims that: (1) Abdelmalik’s second trial was in violation of the double-jeopardy protections in the United States and Missouri Constitutions; and (2) section 650.055 RSMo, as applied to the collection of Ab-delmalik’s DNA sample, violates the Missouri Constitution’s prohibition against laws that operate retrospectively. We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 563, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 885, 2011 WL 2534358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdelmalik-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack