Cheatum v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cheatum v. State

577 S.W.3d 509

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 25, 2019

DocketWD 81101

StatusPublished

This text of 577 S.W.3d 509 (Cheatum 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

Cheatum v. State, 577 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Domionte Cheatum was convicted of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and armed criminal action. The charges arose from an aborted drug deal and shooting which occurred in Columbia in June 2013. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Cheatum filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied Cheatum's motion following an evidentiary hearing. Cheatum appeals. He argues that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately litigate a claim that the State had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Domionte Cheatum was convicted of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and armed criminal action. The charges arose from an aborted drug deal and shooting which occurred in Columbia in June 2013. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Cheatum filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied Cheatum's motion following an evidentiary hearing. Cheatum appeals. He argues that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to adequately litigate a claim that the State had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 S.W.3d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheatum-v-state-moctapp-2019.