Carroll v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carroll v. State

551 S.W.3d 490

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105425

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 551 S.W.3d 490 (Carroll 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

Carroll v. State, 551 S.W.3d 490 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Anthony L. Carroll ("Carroll") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking post-conviction relief. A jury found Carroll guilty of multiple felonies after he robbed and sodomized Victim during a home invasion. Carroll presents three points on appeal. Point One contends that the motion court erred in denying Carroll's request on remand to reappoint post-conviction counsel and permit amendment of his Rule 29.15 motion. Point Two asserts that the motion court clearly erred in rejecting Carroll's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because defense counsel failed to impeach Victim with Victim's medical records. Point Three challenges the sufficiency of the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Anthony L. Carroll ("Carroll") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking post-conviction relief. A jury found Carroll guilty of multiple felonies after he robbed and sodomized Victim during a home invasion. Carroll presents three points on appeal. Point One contends that the motion court erred in denying Carroll's request on remand to reappoint post-conviction counsel and permit amendment of his Rule 29.15 motion. Point Two asserts that the motion court clearly erred in rejecting Carroll's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because defense counsel failed to impeach Victim with Victim's medical records. Point Three challenges the sufficiency of the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 S.W.3d 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack