Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

155 S.W.3d 787, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 89216

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84295

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.W.3d 787 (Davis 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

Davis v. State, 155 S.W.3d 787, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 89216 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Davis (Movant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for murder in the second degree, Section 565.021(1), RSMo 2000,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. On appeal, Movant argues the trial court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to investigate and call an expert in toxicology and (2) to present evidence that Movant was under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and AIDS medication at the time of his statements to the police. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Davis (Movant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for murder in the second degree, Section 565.021(1), RSMo 2000,¹ and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. On appeal, Movant argues the trial court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing (1) to investigate and call an expert in toxicology and (2) to present evidence that Movant was under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and AIDS medication at the time of his statements to the police. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.W.3d 787, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2005 WL 89216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-moctapp-2005.