Carnes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carnes v. State

363 S.W.3d 45, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2011 WL 5335472

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2011

DocketWD 72916

StatusPublished

This text of 363 S.W.3d 45 (Carnes 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

Carnes v. State, 363 S.W.3d 45, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2011 WL 5335472 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Keith Carnes appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Carnes sought to vacate his convictions for first-degree murder, section 565.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 2000, and concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without probation or parole and life imprisonment, respectively. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to call a forensic or crime scene reconstruc-tionist to testify at trial. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Keith Carnes appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Carnes sought to vacate his convictions for first-degree murder, section 565.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, RSMo 2000, and concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without probation or parole and life imprisonment, respectively. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to call a forensic or crime scene reconstruc-tionist to testify at trial. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

363 S.W.3d 45, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1471, 2011 WL 5335472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnes-v-state-moctapp-2011.