Broadus v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Broadus v. State

548 S.W.3d 453

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketWD 80703

StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.W.3d 453 (Broadus 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

Broadus v. State, 548 S.W.3d 453 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Andre Broadus appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Broadus argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because the evidence established that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to call Broadus's brother as a witness at trial to testify that the tattoo on Broadus's hand was present on the day of the charged crimes, thus further supporting the defense theory of misidentification presented at trial. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

Andre Broadus appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Broadus argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because the evidence established that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to call Broadus's brother as a witness at trial to testify that the tattoo on Broadus's hand was present on the day of the charged crimes, thus further supporting the defense theory of misidentification presented at trial. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadus-v-state-moctapp-2018.