Costa v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Costa v. State

85 S.W.3d 758, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1984, 2002 WL 31186202

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

DocketNo. WD 60660

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 S.W.3d 758 (Costa 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

Costa v. State, 85 S.W.3d 758, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1984, 2002 WL 31186202 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Bernardo 0. Costa appeals from the circuit court’s order overruling, after an evi-dentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, the appellant was convicted of one count of statutory rape in the first degree, § 566.032, for which he was sentenced as a predatory sexual offender, § 558.018, to life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole for thirty years.

The appellant raises four points on appeal. In Point I, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because the evidence established that counsel was deficient in failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court’s admission of expert medical testimony that the victim had been sexually assaulted. In Points II-IV, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the evidence established that his counsel was deficient for: (1) failing to present “evidence of emotional and physical abuse of the Costa children” while they were in foster care; (2) failing to request a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony that the behavioral indicators displayed by the victim were consistent with victims of sexual abuse; and (3) failing to “correct” alleged perjured testimony. In Point IV, the appellant also claims that his right to due process of law was violated in that the State knowingly used false testimony to convict him of the charged offense.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Bernardo 0. Costa appeals from the circuit court’s order overruling, after an evi-dentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, the appellant was convicted of one count of statutory rape in the first degree, § 566.032, for which he was sentenced as a predatory sexual offender, § 558.018, to life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole for thirty years.

The appellant raises four points on appeal. In Point I, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because the evidence established that counsel was deficient in failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court’s admission of expert medical testimony that the victim had been sexually assaulted. In Points II-IV, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the evidence established that his counsel was deficient for: (1) failing to present “evidence of emotional and physical abuse of the Costa children” while they were in foster care; (2) failing to request a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony that the behavioral indicators displayed by the victim were consistent with victims of sexual abuse; and (3) failing to “correct” alleged perjured testimony. In Point IV, the appellant also claims that his right to due process of law was violated in that the State knowingly used false testimony to convict him of the charged offense.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W.3d 758, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1984, 2002 WL 31186202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costa-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack