Denzmore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Denzmore v. State

487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578904, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 369

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103048

StatusPublished

This text of 487 S.W.3d 493 (Denzmore 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

Denzmore v. State, 487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578904, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 369 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymon Denzmore (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because he proved that his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to call Movant’s brother to testify as an alibi witness, and (2) conceding Movant’s guilt on two of his charged crimes. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymon Denzmore (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction motion because he proved that his trial counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to call Movant’s brother to testify as an alibi witness, and (2) conceding Movant’s guilt on two of his charged crimes. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.3d 493, 2016 WL 1578904, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denzmore-v-state-moctapp-2016.