Baskerville v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Baskerville v. State

543 S.W.3d 619

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 2018

DocketWD 80021

StatusPublished

This text of 543 S.W.3d 619 (Baskerville 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

Baskerville v. State, 543 S.W.3d 619 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

*620Rickey Baskerville appeals a motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, after the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences for three counts of capital murder. He contends the court clearly erred, because deficient appellate counsel prejudiced his appeal by failing to address two errors, after trial counsel preserved the alleged errors for appeal: 1) a prosecutor's misstatement of law during closing argument, and 2) the unlawful conditions of Baskerville's pre-trial detention. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

*620Rickey Baskerville appeals a motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, after the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences for three counts of capital murder. He contends the court clearly erred, because deficient appellate counsel prejudiced his appeal by failing to address two errors, after trial counsel preserved the alleged errors for appeal: 1) a prosecutor's misstatement of law during closing argument, and 2) the unlawful conditions of Baskerville's pre-trial detention. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 S.W.3d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baskerville-v-state-moctapp-2018.