Adkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adkins v. State

386 S.W.3d 910, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1520, 2012 WL 6018029

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97546

StatusPublished

This text of 386 S.W.3d 910 (Adkins 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

Adkins v. State, 386 S.W.3d 910, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1520, 2012 WL 6018029 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carjuan Adkins (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel following an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues two points on appeal. Movant argues his defense counsel was ineffective (1) for coercing him into unknowingly, unintelligently, and involuntarily waiving his right to testify at trial, and (2) for failing to object to evidence and argument that the present offense wasn’t the first time Movant had assaulted Victim. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude [911]*911the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k) Mo. R.Crim.P.(2011); Nicklasson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Mo. bane 2008). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carjuan Adkins (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel following an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues two points on appeal. Movant argues his defense counsel was ineffective (1) for coercing him into unknowingly, unintelligently, and involuntarily waiving his right to testify at trial, and (2) for failing to object to evidence and argument that the present offense wasn’t the first time Movant had assaulted Victim. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude [911]*911the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k) Mo. R.Crim.P.(2011); Nicklasson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 482, 484 (Mo. bane 2008). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 S.W.3d 910, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1520, 2012 WL 6018029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack