Dailey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dailey v. State

278 S.W.3d 248, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2009 WL 685598

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 2009

DocketED 91209

StatusPublished

This text of 278 S.W.3d 248 (Dailey 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

Dailey v. State, 278 S.W.3d 248, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2009 WL 685598 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Dailey (“movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he showed that he was denied his rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the unavailability of an alibi witness, and for failing to call him as a witness to testify in his own defense, and but for the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Dailey (“movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he showed that he was denied his rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the unavailability of an alibi witness, and for failing to call him as a witness to testify in his own defense, and but for the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of his trial would have been different.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 248, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2009 WL 685598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-state-moctapp-2009.