Fleming v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fleming v. State

348 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1198, 2011 WL 4037036

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketED 95835

StatusPublished

This text of 348 S.W.3d 129 (Fleming 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

Fleming v. State, 348 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1198, 2011 WL 4037036 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Edward Fleming, Sr. (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to locate, interview, subpoena, endorse, and call as a witness Barbara Weber (“Weber”); (2) for failing to failing to locate, interview, subpoena, endorse, and call as a witness Thomas Curdillo (“Curdillo”); (3) for failing to object and/or request a mistriál when the jurors saw Movant in custody when he' was brought into the courtroom; and (4) for failing to object when the State argued, “[a]nd the only way to protect [the complaining witness] is to find him guilty of all charges” and “[t]he only reason [the complaining witness] can’t be afraid is if you find him guilty of all the charges.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *130 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.

Joseph Edward Fleming, Sr. (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to locate, interview, subpoena, endorse, and call as a witness Barbara Weber (“Weber”); (2) for failing to failing to locate, interview, subpoena, endorse, and call as a witness Thomas Curdillo (“Curdillo”); (3) for failing to object and/or request a mistriál when the jurors saw Movant in custody when he' was brought into the courtroom; and (4) for failing to object when the State argued, “[a]nd the only way to protect [the complaining witness] is to find him guilty of all charges” and “[t]he only reason [the complaining witness] can’t be afraid is if you find him guilty of all the charges.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *130 setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 S.W.3d 129, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1198, 2011 WL 4037036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-state-moctapp-2011.