Cain v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cain v. State

490 S.W.3d 376, 2016 WL 1641824, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 418

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 2016

DocketWD 78186

StatusPublished

This text of 490 S.W.3d 376 (Cain 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

Cain v. State, 490 S.W.3d 376, 2016 WL 1641824, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 418 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellant Michael Cain (“Cain”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Cain was convicted at trial of one count of rape with the display of ■ a weapon, section 566.030, and two counts of sodomy with the display of a weapon, section 566.060, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. In his amended post-conviction motion for relief, as relevant to his appeal, Cain argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare him to testify. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion. Cain now appeals. Because we find that Cain failed to show that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, we affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has, been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per curiam:

Appellant Michael Cain (“Cain”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Cain was convicted at trial of one count of rape with the display of ■ a weapon, section 566.030, and two counts of sodomy with the display of a weapon, section 566.060, and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. In his amended post-conviction motion for relief, as relevant to his appeal, Cain argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare him to testify. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion. Cain now appeals. Because we find that Cain failed to show that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, we affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has, been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 S.W.3d 376, 2016 WL 1641824, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cain-v-state-moctapp-2016.