Carmical v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carmical v. State

365 S.W.3d 618, 2012 WL 1416674, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 547

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2012

DocketED 96671

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 365 S.W.3d 618 (Carmical 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

Carmical v. State, 365 S.W.3d 618, 2012 WL 1416674, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Henry Carmical (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion without a hearing because he alleged facts claiming ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel which warranted relief and were not refuted by the record. Specifically, Movant claims trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing Movant to testify in his own defense at trial, for failing to endorse and subpoena an experienced neurologist, and for failing to have a fiber tested for DNA. Also, Movant contends appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on direct appeal that the trial court erred in overruling *619 Movant’s motion to suppress his statements. We affirm.

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

ORDER

Henry Carmical (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion without a hearing because he alleged facts claiming ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel which warranted relief and were not refuted by the record. Specifically, Movant claims trial counsel was ineffective for not allowing Movant to testify in his own defense at trial, for failing to endorse and subpoena an experienced neurologist, and for failing to have a fiber tested for DNA. Also, Movant contends appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on direct appeal that the trial court erred in overruling *619 Movant’s motion to suppress his statements. We affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 S.W.3d 618, 2012 WL 1416674, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmical-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack