Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

211 S.W.3d 639, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, 2007 WL 92613

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

DocketED 87866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 S.W.3d 639 (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, 211 S.W.3d 639, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, 2007 WL 92613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*640 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Martiez Davis (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000) 1 , attempted rape, Section 566.030, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Subsequently, Mov-ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises one point on appeal. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred when it misread the trial transcript and erroneously determined he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel questioned a police officer about a piece of evidence found that inculpated him in the attempted rape of the victim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

*640 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Martiez Davis (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000) 1 , attempted rape, Section 566.030, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). Subsequently, Mov-ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises one point on appeal. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred when it misread the trial transcript and erroneously determined he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel questioned a police officer about a piece of evidence found that inculpated him in the attempted rape of the victim.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.W.3d 639, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, 2007 WL 92613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack