Donaldson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Donaldson v. State

291 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2009 WL 2871111

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

DocketED 92039

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 S.W.3d 860 (Donaldson 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

Donaldson v. State, 291 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2009 WL 2871111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Donaldson (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object on cross-examination when the prosecutor elicited highly prejudicial details about Movant’s prior conviction of first-degree assault and for failing to move for a mistrial, or in the alternative, for failing to move for substitution of juror Sandra Butler (“Juror Butler”) who had an unauthorized conversation with Officer Julian Conner (“Officer Conner”), a prosecution witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. 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.

Charles Donaldson (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object on cross-examination when the prosecutor elicited highly prejudicial details about Movant’s prior conviction of first-degree assault and for failing to move for a mistrial, or in the alternative, for failing to move for substitution of juror Sandra Butler (“Juror Butler”) who had an unauthorized conversation with Officer Julian Conner (“Officer Conner”), a prosecution witness.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. 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)

291 S.W.3d 860, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2009 WL 2871111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donaldson-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack