Darrough v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Darrough v. State

450 S.W.3d 463, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1095, 2014 WL 4823641

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 30, 2014·No. No. WD 76678·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Darrough appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Darrough contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel in that: (1) the trial court failed to take corrective action when a juror took notes during his trial contrary to the mandates of Rule 27.08 and without being properly instructed as required in MAI-CR3d 302.01; (2) Darrough’s trial counsel failed to object or request any relief; and (3) Darrough’s direct appeal counsel failed to assert this issue on appeal. 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:

Alonzo Darrough appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Darrough contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he was denied due process and effective assistance of counsel in that: (1) the trial court failed to take corrective action when a juror took notes during his trial contrary to the mandates of Rule 27.08 and without being properly instructed as required in MAI-CR3d 302.01; (2) Darrough’s trial counsel failed to object or request any relief; and (3) Darrough’s direct appeal counsel failed to assert this issue on appeal. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Darrough v. State, 450 S.W.3d 463, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1095, 2014 WL 4823641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

450 S.W.3d 463 (Darrough v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.