Carpenter v. State

218 S.W.3d 31, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 515, 2007 WL 898237
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Carpenter v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 665
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 27, 2007·No. ED 88240·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Milliard S. Carpenter (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of two counts of forgery, Section 570.090 RSMo (2000), 1 two counts of misdemeanor stealing, Section 570.030, and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, Section 195.233. The jury acquitted Movant of a second count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. Movant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each of the forgery convictions and one year imprisonment for each of the misdemeanor convictions, all sentences to run concurrently. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction on appeal. State v. Carpenter, 143 S.W.3d 705 (Mo.App. E.D.2004).

Movant raises three points on appeal. Movant claims in his first two points that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentia-ry hearing in that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to: (1) object to the admission of evidence and statements that were the subject of Movant’s pretrial motion to suppress; and (2) obtain a transcript of the motion to suppress hearing in order to use it to impeach a witness’ testimony with prior inconsistent statements. Movant’s third point alleged the motion court erred in refusing to appoint new counsel after Movant alleged a justifiable dissatisfaction and/or irreconcilable conflict of interest with trial counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the motion *32 court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000), unless otherwise indicated.

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

Carpenter v. State, 218 S.W.3d 31, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 515, 2007 WL 898237 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

218 S.W.3d 31 (Carpenter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Carpenter
143 S.W.3d 705 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2004)