Burns v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burns v. State

187 S.W.3d 918, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 2006 WL 911597

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 11, 2006·No. No. ED 86093·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damion Burns (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for second-degree murder, Section 565.21, RSMo 2000,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which Movant was sentenced to life imprisonment and three years’ imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Mov-ant argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction claim following an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to evidence of Movant’s reputation for violence through the testimony of his girlfriend, Angelique Bealon (Bealon). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Damion Burns (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for second-degree murder, Section 565.21, RSMo 2000,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which Movant was sentenced to life imprisonment and three years’ imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Mov-ant argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction claim following an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to evidence of Movant’s reputation for violence through the testimony of his girlfriend, Angelique Bealon (Bealon). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Burns v. State, 187 S.W.3d 918, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 2006 WL 911597 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

187 S.W.3d 918 (Burns v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.