Batiste v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Batiste v. State

395 S.W.3d 46, 2013 WL 816067, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 287

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 5, 2013·No. No. WD 74926·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Batiste, Jr., appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Batiste claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness to testify in Batiste’s defense. He argues that the witness’s testimony would have contradicted the testimony of the State’s medical witness. He further claims that he was prejudiced in that, if the jury had been given the opportunity to consider this contradictory testimony, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different. But because Batiste failed to prove that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, we affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Batiste, Jr., appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Batiste claims that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call a witness to testify in Batiste’s defense. He argues that the witness’s testimony would have contradicted the testimony of the State’s medical witness. He further claims that he was prejudiced in that, if the jury had been given the opportunity to consider this contradictory testimony, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different. But because Batiste failed to prove that trial counsel’s performance was deficient, we affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b).

Batiste v. State, 395 S.W.3d 46, 2013 WL 816067, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 287 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

395 S.W.3d 46 (Batiste v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.