Austin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Austin v. State

471 S.W.3d 404, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2015 WL 5824025

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102146

StatusPublished

This text of 471 S.W.3d 404 (Austin 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

Austin v. State, 471 S.W.3d 404, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2015 WL 5824025 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Daniel Austin appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raises three points on appeal: (1) that trial counsel should have interviewed, properly investigated, subpoenaed, and called as a trial witness Michelle Link, who Austin claims would have testified that she was present at Austin’s arrest, and that he did not resist or attempt to resist his arrest by using or threatening physical force or violence; (2) that appellate counsel should have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Austin of resisting arrest; and (3) that appellate counsel should have challenged the constitutionality of the trial court’s refusal to suppress Austin’s post-arrest statement. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Daniel Austin appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Jones raises three points on appeal: (1) that trial counsel should have interviewed, properly investigated, subpoenaed, and called as a trial witness Michelle Link, who Austin claims would have testified that she was present at Austin’s arrest, and that he did not resist or attempt to resist his arrest by using or threatening physical force or violence; (2) that appellate counsel should have challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Austin of resisting arrest; and (3) that appellate counsel should have challenged the constitutionality of the trial court’s refusal to suppress Austin’s post-arrest statement. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.W.3d 404, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1008, 2015 WL 5824025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-state-moctapp-2015.