Chapman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chapman v. State

434 S.W.3d 541, 2014 WL 2883439, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 709

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 24, 2014·No. No. WD 75844·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Marion Chapman appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point on appeal, Chapman contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney in that she 1) failed to advise Chapman, in a manner that he could understand, that the jury could be instructed as to not only self-defense but also voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder; and 2) failed to request that the jury be instructed on voluntary manslaughter.

We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM:

Marion Chapman appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point on appeal, Chapman contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney in that she 1) failed to advise Chapman, in a manner that he could understand, that the jury could be instructed as to not only self-defense but also voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder; and 2) failed to request that the jury be instructed on voluntary manslaughter.

We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Chapman v. State, 434 S.W.3d 541, 2014 WL 2883439, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 709 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

434 S.W.3d 541 (Chapman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.