Clay v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clay v. State

461 S.W.3d 453, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 548, 2015 WL 2391929

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 19, 2015·No. WD 77426·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Per Curiam:

Mr. Timothy Clay, Jr., appeals the denial of a 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. He claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call the codefen-dant to corroborate a self-defense theory. He also claims appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file surveillance video exhibits to support the insufficiency of evidence argument. We affirm.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, 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:

Mr. Timothy Clay, Jr., appeals the denial of a 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. He claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call the codefen-dant to corroborate a self-defense theory. He also claims appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to file surveillance video exhibits to support the insufficiency of evidence argument. We affirm.

For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Clay v. State, 461 S.W.3d 453, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 548, 2015 WL 2391929 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

461 S.W.3d 453 (Clay v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.