Calhoun v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Calhoun v. State

366 S.W.3d 106, 2012 WL 1673070, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 682

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 2012

DocketWD 73494

StatusPublished

This text of 366 S.W.3d 106 (Calhoun 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

Calhoun v. State, 366 S.W.3d 106, 2012 WL 1673070, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 682 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mack Calhoun appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Calhoun claims that the trial court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Calhoun claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing: (1) to consult with an expert in the field of forensic evidence and call said expert at trial; and (2) to object to the criminalist’s testimony at trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mack Calhoun appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Calhoun claims that the trial court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Calhoun claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing: (1) to consult with an expert in the field of forensic evidence and call said expert at trial; and (2) to object to the criminalist’s testimony at trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 S.W.3d 106, 2012 WL 1673070, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-state-moctapp-2012.