Brotherton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brotherton v. State

356 S.W.3d 839, 2012 WL 70625, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 18

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 2012

DocketED 96563

StatusPublished

This text of 356 S.W.3d 839 (Brotherton 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

Brotherton v. State, 356 S.W.3d 839, 2012 WL 70625, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 18 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tommy Brotherton (Brother-ton) appeals from the motion court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief. Brotherton was convicted by a jury of first degree statutory sodomy and first degree child molestation. This Court affirmed Brotherton’s conviction in State v. Brotherton, 318 S.W.3d 309 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). On appeal, Brotherton argues that the motion court erred when it denied his post-conviction claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to produce witness testimony regarding his mental health and medication history, and in rendering inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

1

. All Rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. P.2011 unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tommy Brotherton (Brother-ton) appeals from the motion court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief. Brotherton was convicted by a jury of first degree statutory sodomy and first degree child molestation. This Court affirmed Brotherton’s conviction in State v. Brotherton, 318 S.W.3d 309 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). On appeal, Brotherton argues that the motion court erred when it denied his post-conviction claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to produce witness testimony regarding his mental health and medication history, and in rendering inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

1

. All Rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. P.2011 unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 839, 2012 WL 70625, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brotherton-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack