Gibbs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gibbs v. State

278 S.W.3d 715, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2009 WL 792047

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 90954

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 715 (Gibbs 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

Gibbs v. State, 278 S.W.3d 715, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2009 WL 792047 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Gibbs (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his counsel -was ineffective for failing to call alibi witnesses Venita King and Ebony Gibbs. Second, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor improperly personalized her argument to the jury by asking jurors to place themselves in the victim’s shoes at the time the offenses were committed.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Gibbs (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant makes two arguments on appeal. First, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his counsel -was ineffective for failing to call alibi witnesses Venita King and Ebony Gibbs. Second, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because his counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor improperly personalized her argument to the jury by asking jurors to place themselves in the victim’s shoes at the time the offenses were committed.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 715, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2009 WL 792047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack