Edmonds v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Edmonds v. State

500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2016 WL 5889003

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103552

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 500 S.W.3d 908 (Edmonds 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

Edmonds v. State, 500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2016 WL 5889003 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[909]*909ORDER

PER CURIAM

In his sole point on appeal, Edmonds claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion that asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Edmonds of the definition of the term “forcible compulsion” as set forth in § 556.061(12), and to advise Ed-monds, based on that definition, that he had a viable legal defense to the first-degree sodomy charge against him. We disagree and affirm because we find that the motion court did not clearly err in determining that the record refutes Ed-monds’s ineffective-assistance claim.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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

[909]*909ORDER

PER CURIAM

In his sole point on appeal, Edmonds claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion that asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Edmonds of the definition of the term “forcible compulsion” as set forth in § 556.061(12), and to advise Ed-monds, based on that definition, that he had a viable legal defense to the first-degree sodomy charge against him. We disagree and affirm because we find that the motion court did not clearly err in determining that the record refutes Ed-monds’s ineffective-assistance claim.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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)

500 S.W.3d 908, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2016 WL 5889003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmonds-v-state-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack