Beatty v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Beatty v. State

516 S.W.3d 428, 2017 WL 1404361, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 310

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104310

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.3d 428 (Beatty 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

Beatty v. State, 516 S.W.3d 428, 2017 WL 1404361, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Lewis Beatty (“Appellant”) appeals the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.¹ A jury convicted Movant of one count domestic assault in the first degree, one count armed criminal action, one count burglary in the first degree, one count resisting a lawful stop, and one count violating an order of protection.² Movant argued that his trial counsel acted unreasonably by: (1) failing to adequately oppose the State’s motion in limine to preclude reference that the victim was HIV-positive; and (2) failing to call Movant to testify at trial. Movant failed to allege facts, not refuted by the record, that warrant relief on his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [429]*429The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Lewis Beatty (“Appellant”) appeals the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.¹ A jury convicted Movant of one count domestic assault in the first degree, one count armed criminal action, one count burglary in the first degree, one count resisting a lawful stop, and one count violating an order of protection.² Movant argued that his trial counsel acted unreasonably by: (1) failing to adequately oppose the State’s motion in limine to preclude reference that the victim was HIV-positive; and (2) failing to call Movant to testify at trial. Movant failed to allege facts, not refuted by the record, that warrant relief on his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. [429]*429The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.3d 428, 2017 WL 1404361, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beatty-v-state-moctapp-2017.