Brinson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brinson v. State

427 S.W.3d 840, 2014 WL 840032, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 213

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 4, 2014·No. No. WD 75667·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

John Brinson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after he was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife. Brinson contends he was entitled to post-conviction relief because: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for calling his adult children as witnesses; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of his objection to an expert’s opinion; and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment denying post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

John Brinson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after he was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife. Brinson contends he was entitled to post-conviction relief because: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for calling his adult children as witnesses; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of his objection to an expert’s opinion; and (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment denying post-conviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Brinson v. State, 427 S.W.3d 840, 2014 WL 840032, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 213 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

427 S.W.3d 840 (Brinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.