Conaway v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Conaway v. State

554 S.W.3d 557

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 14, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105941

StatusPublished

This text of 554 S.W.3d 557 (Conaway 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

Conaway v. State, 554 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Coy Conaway ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, and finding that he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Movant offers four points on appeal. Movant argues in two points that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible witness testimony, and argues in the remaining two points that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the State's closing argument. Even if Movant's trial counsel committed the alleged errors, we find that Movant cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced, as there was an overwhelming amount of admissible evidence supporting Movant's guilt in this case. Because Movant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged errors, he has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Coy Conaway ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, and finding that he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Movant offers four points on appeal. Movant argues in two points that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to inadmissible witness testimony, and argues in the remaining two points that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to portions of the State's closing argument. Even if Movant's trial counsel committed the alleged errors, we find that Movant cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced, as there was an overwhelming amount of admissible evidence supporting Movant's guilt in this case. Because Movant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's alleged errors, he has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 S.W.3d 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conaway-v-state-moctapp-2018.