Carter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carter v. State

187 S.W.3d 917, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 442, 2006 WL 911520

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86420

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.W.3d 917 (Carter 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

Carter v. State, 187 S.W.3d 917, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 442, 2006 WL 911520 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kerry Carter (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

In Movant’s sole point on appeal, he claims that the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction claim that his appellate counsel for his direct appeal, Ellen H. Flottman (“Flottman”) was ineffective. Movant alleges that Flottman failed to raise the issue of inconsistent verdicts rendered by the jury when it found Movant guilty on the attempted first-degree robbery count but acquitted him on the armed criminal action count. He claims that had she raised the issue of the inconsistent verdicts on direct appeal, a new trial would have been granted or his conviction and sentence would have been reversed. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kerry Carter (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

In Movant’s sole point on appeal, he claims that the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction claim that his appellate counsel for his direct appeal, Ellen H. Flottman (“Flottman”) was ineffective. Movant alleges that Flottman failed to raise the issue of inconsistent verdicts rendered by the jury when it found Movant guilty on the attempted first-degree robbery count but acquitted him on the armed criminal action count. He claims that had she raised the issue of the inconsistent verdicts on direct appeal, a new trial would have been granted or his conviction and sentence would have been reversed. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.W.3d 917, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 442, 2006 WL 911520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-moctapp-2006.