Brookins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brookins v. State

490 S.W.3d 797, 2016 WL 3070074, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 541

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102977

StatusPublished

This text of 490 S.W.3d 797 (Brookins 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

Brookins v. State, 490 S.W.3d 797, 2016 WL 3070074, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 541 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

. ORDER

PER CURIAM

Walter Brookins (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant claims the motion court erred when it determined that he was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Movant claims that (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a continuánee to seek new trial counsel, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain informed consent from Movant prior to Mov-ant waiving his right to jury trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

. ORDER

PER CURIAM

Walter Brookins (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Movant claims the motion court erred when it determined that he was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Movant claims that (1) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a continuánee to seek new trial counsel, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain informed consent from Movant prior to Mov-ant waiving his right to jury trial. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 S.W.3d 797, 2016 WL 3070074, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brookins-v-state-moctapp-2016.