Frazee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Frazee v. State

524 S.W.3d 173, 2017 WL 3026747, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 710

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 18, 2017

DocketWD 79522

StatusPublished

This text of 524 S.W.3d 173 (Frazee 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

Frazee v. State, 524 S.W.3d 173, 2017 WL 3026747, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial, appellant Lawrence Frazee was found guilty of robbery in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Clay County. The court sentenced Frazee to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently to another felony sentence he was then serving. Frazee filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied Frazee’s motion following an evidentiary hearing. Frazee appeals. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call mental health professionals to testify as mitigation witnesses during the sentencing phase of Frazee’s trial. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial, appellant Lawrence Frazee was found guilty of robbery in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Clay County. The court sentenced Frazee to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently to another felony sentence he was then serving. Frazee filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied Frazee’s motion following an evidentiary hearing. Frazee appeals. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call mental health professionals to testify as mitigation witnesses during the sentencing phase of Frazee’s trial. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 S.W.3d 173, 2017 WL 3026747, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazee-v-state-moctapp-2017.