Arnold v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnold v. State

552 S.W.3d 698

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2018

DocketWD 80373

StatusPublished

This text of 552 S.W.3d 698 (Arnold 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

Arnold v. State, 552 S.W.3d 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam:

*699Ricky W. Arnold appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Arnold asserts that he received ineffective assistance when: (1) trial counsel failed to present a defense and to request a jury instruction on entrapment; and (2) trial counsel failed to move to dismiss the charge of attempted enticement of a child based on the government's outrageous conduct. Arnold argues that an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 29.15 motion was required because he alleged facts which are not refuted by the record that, if true, would warrant post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per curiam:

*699Ricky W. Arnold appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Arnold asserts that he received ineffective assistance when: (1) trial counsel failed to present a defense and to request a jury instruction on entrapment; and (2) trial counsel failed to move to dismiss the charge of attempted enticement of a child based on the government's outrageous conduct. Arnold argues that an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 29.15 motion was required because he alleged facts which are not refuted by the record that, if true, would warrant post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

552 S.W.3d 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-state-moctapp-2018.