DIZER v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

DIZER v. State

247 S.W.3d 608, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2008 WL 710445

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

DocketED 89239

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.W.3d 608 (DIZER 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

DIZER v. State, 247 S.W.3d 608, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2008 WL 710445 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jamel Dizer appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Joan L. Moriarty presiding. A jury convicted Dizer of two counts of forcible sodomy and one count of false imprisonment. The court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the sodomy charges and one year in prison for false imprisonment. This Court affirmed in State v. Dizer, 119 S.W.3d 156 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Dizer filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied.

Dizer’s sole point on appeal alleges his counsel was ineffective for making what Dizer considered to be improper concessions during opening and closing argument. The motion court found that counsel’s arguments were part of a reasonable trial strategy.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. We believe a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jamel Dizer appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable Joan L. Moriarty presiding. A jury convicted Dizer of two counts of forcible sodomy and one count of false imprisonment. The court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for the sodomy charges and one year in prison for false imprisonment. This Court affirmed in State v. Dizer, 119 S.W.3d 156 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Dizer filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied.

Dizer’s sole point on appeal alleges his counsel was ineffective for making what Dizer considered to be improper concessions during opening and closing argument. The motion court found that counsel’s arguments were part of a reasonable trial strategy.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. We believe a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 608, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 357, 2008 WL 710445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dizer-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack