Blackmon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blackmon v. State

216 S.W.3d 260, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 422, 2007 WL 756109

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 13, 2007·No. No. WD 66835·Published

Opinion

[261] Order

PER CURIAM.

Travis Blackmon argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for not adequately cross-examining the alleged victim to show that she was lying about the facts and circumstances of the charged incident. The extent of cross-examination is a matter of trial strategy and Blackmon was not prejudiced. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

[261] Order

PER CURIAM.

Travis Blackmon argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for not adequately cross-examining the alleged victim to show that she was lying about the facts and circumstances of the charged incident. The extent of cross-examination is a matter of trial strategy and Blackmon was not prejudiced. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Blackmon v. State, 216 S.W.3d 260, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 422, 2007 WL 756109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

216 S.W.3d 260 (Blackmon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.