Charles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Charles v. State

520 S.W.3d 522, 2017 WL 2544768, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 560

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104287

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 522 (Charles 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

Charles v. State, 520 S.W.3d 522, 2017 WL 2544768, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 560 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Dontae L. Charles fíled a Rule 29.15 motion claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the submission of a lesser-included offense instruction on one of the first-degree assault charges he was convicted of. Specifically, Charles asserts that trial counsel should have requested a lesser-included offense instruction for the class B felony of first-degree assault because the evidence did not support that the victim suffered serious physical injury—the element that differentiates class A first-degree assault from class B first-degree assault. See § 565.050. The motion court granted Charles an evidentiary hearing but denied [523]*523Charles’s motion, finding that trial counsel’s strategy for not requesting the instruction was reasonable. Because we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Dontae L. Charles fíled a Rule 29.15 motion claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request the submission of a lesser-included offense instruction on one of the first-degree assault charges he was convicted of. Specifically, Charles asserts that trial counsel should have requested a lesser-included offense instruction for the class B felony of first-degree assault because the evidence did not support that the victim suffered serious physical injury—the element that differentiates class A first-degree assault from class B first-degree assault. See § 565.050. The motion court granted Charles an evidentiary hearing but denied [523]*523Charles’s motion, finding that trial counsel’s strategy for not requesting the instruction was reasonable. Because we do not find the motion court’s findings and conclusions to be clearly erroneous, we affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 S.W.3d 522, 2017 WL 2544768, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-state-moctapp-2017.