DANSBERRY v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

DANSBERRY v. State

342 S.W.3d 368, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 785, 2011 WL 2237274

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 94731

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 368 (DANSBERRY 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

DANSBERRY v. State, 342 S.W.3d 368, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 785, 2011 WL 2237274 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rayon Dansberry (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to call Robert Barton to testify at Movant’s trial, and (2) failing to object to hearsay and other crimes testimony about property from these robberies and property from other robberies being found in Washington Park, Illinois.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Rayon Dansberry (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to call Robert Barton to testify at Movant’s trial, and (2) failing to object to hearsay and other crimes testimony about property from these robberies and property from other robberies being found in Washington Park, Illinois.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 368, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 785, 2011 WL 2237274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dansberry-v-state-moctapp-2011.