Dudley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dudley v. State

392 S.W.3d 573, 2013 WL 968092, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 325

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 2013

DocketNo. WD 74137

StatusPublished

This text of 392 S.W.3d 573 (Dudley 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

Dudley v. State, 392 S.W.3d 573, 2013 WL 968092, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Paul Dudley appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Dudley sought to vacate his convictions for second degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon and concurrent sentences of twenty-three years and five years imprisonment, respectively. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to call two witnesses to testify about acts of violence against him by people associated with the victim and failed to request a modification to the jury instructions based on unreasonable use of force in self-defense pursuant to State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc 2000). Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Paul Dudley appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Dudley sought to vacate his convictions for second degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon and concurrent sentences of twenty-three years and five years imprisonment, respectively. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to call two witnesses to testify about acts of violence against him by people associated with the victim and failed to request a modification to the jury instructions based on unreasonable use of force in self-defense pursuant to State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc 2000). Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 S.W.3d 573, 2013 WL 968092, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudley-v-state-moctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack