Gilmer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gilmer v. State

504 S.W.3d 136, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1038, 2016 WL 6081890

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2016

DocketWD 78332

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 136 (Gilmer 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

Gilmer v. State, 504 S.W.3d 136, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1038, 2016 WL 6081890 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[137]*137ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Appellant Webber Gilmer was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the shooting death of Brian Harrell on March 16, 2007. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of life without parole and 75 years for the two offenses. Following the affirmance of Gilmer’s convictions on direct appeal, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. As amended, Gilmer’s motion argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a second mental-health evaluation, and for failing to obtain a competency hearing, after an initial evaluation had determined that Gilmer was competent to proceed to trial. The circuit court denied Gilmer’s motion following an evidentiary hearing. He appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.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

[137]*137ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Appellant Webber Gilmer was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the shooting death of Brian Harrell on March 16, 2007. He was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of life without parole and 75 years for the two offenses. Following the affirmance of Gilmer’s convictions on direct appeal, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. As amended, Gilmer’s motion argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a second mental-health evaluation, and for failing to obtain a competency hearing, after an initial evaluation had determined that Gilmer was competent to proceed to trial. The circuit court denied Gilmer’s motion following an evidentiary hearing. He appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 136, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1038, 2016 WL 6081890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmer-v-state-moctapp-2016.