Barrentine v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barrentine v. State

343 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 2011 WL 2313738

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 2011

DocketWD 72322

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 343 S.W.3d 680 (Barrentine 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

Barrentine v. State, 343 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 2011 WL 2313738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

John Barrentine appeals the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri’s (“motion court”) denial, after a hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. On appeal, Barrentine claims that the motion court erred in finding that his plea counsel (“Counsel”) was not constitutionally ineffective in that Counsel failed to: (1) seek suppression of Barrentine’s confession to police on the grounds that he did not knowingly waive his right to remain silent; (2) argue at sentencing that Barrentine was not his daughter’s “psychological father” thus mitigating his sexual abuse of her; and (3) argue at sentencing that Barrentine’s Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and not pedophilia, caused him to be unable to resist his daughter’s sexual precociousness. 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:

John Barrentine appeals the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri’s (“motion court”) denial, after a hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. On appeal, Barrentine claims that the motion court erred in finding that his plea counsel (“Counsel”) was not constitutionally ineffective in that Counsel failed to: (1) seek suppression of Barrentine’s confession to police on the grounds that he did not knowingly waive his right to remain silent; (2) argue at sentencing that Barrentine was not his daughter’s “psychological father” thus mitigating his sexual abuse of her; and (3) argue at sentencing that Barrentine’s Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and not pedophilia, caused him to be unable to resist his daughter’s sexual precociousness. We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 S.W.3d 680, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 2011 WL 2313738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrentine-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack