Baker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Baker v. State

391 S.W.3d 497, 2013 WL 324262, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 124

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 2013

DocketNo. WD 74581

StatusPublished

This text of 391 S.W.3d 497 (Baker 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

Baker v. State, 391 S.W.3d 497, 2013 WL 324262, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 124 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Baker appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Baker argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely endorse a witness that would have supported his defense theory, resulting in the exclusion of her testimony at trial. Baker claims that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure in that, had the witness been allowed to testify, the State would have been unable to make an argument in closing regarding a lack of evidence to support Baker’s defense theory. Because Baker failed to prove either that counsel’s performance was deficient or that Baker suffered resulting prejudice, we affirm the decision 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:

Christopher Baker appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Baker argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely endorse a witness that would have supported his defense theory, resulting in the exclusion of her testimony at trial. Baker claims that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure in that, had the witness been allowed to testify, the State would have been unable to make an argument in closing regarding a lack of evidence to support Baker’s defense theory. Because Baker failed to prove either that counsel’s performance was deficient or that Baker suffered resulting prejudice, we affirm the decision of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 S.W.3d 497, 2013 WL 324262, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-state-moctapp-2013.