Dunn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dunn v. State

311 S.W.3d 388, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 723, 2010 WL 2056021

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 25, 2010

DocketED 93088

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 311 S.W.3d 388 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 311 S.W.3d 388, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 723, 2010 WL 2056021 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Dunn (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal alleging the motion court clearly erred in declining to find his defense attorneys ineffective. First, Movant contends his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to request a mistrial after several jurors allegedly discussed Movant’s case amongst themselves and formed opinions before deliberations. Second, Movant asserts his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to offer additional evidence of alleged juror misconduct in support of his motion for a new trial. Finally, in his final two points, Movant alleges his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to object to two statements the prosecutor made during the State’s closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Edwards v. State, 200 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2006). An extended 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. We affirm the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion 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.

Roberto Dunn (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal alleging the motion court clearly erred in declining to find his defense attorneys ineffective. First, Movant contends his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to request a mistrial after several jurors allegedly discussed Movant’s case amongst themselves and formed opinions before deliberations. Second, Movant asserts his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to offer additional evidence of alleged juror misconduct in support of his motion for a new trial. Finally, in his final two points, Movant alleges his defense attorneys were ineffective for failing to object to two statements the prosecutor made during the State’s closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Edwards v. State, 200 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2006). An extended 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. We affirm the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 S.W.3d 388, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 723, 2010 WL 2056021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack