Gomez v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gomez v. State

468 S.W.3d 904, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 844, 2015 WL 5013521

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 25, 2015·No. WD 77808·Published

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

Braulio Gomez appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Gomez argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call two witnesses at Gomez’s trial. But because trial counsel’s decisions were based upon reasonable trial strategy, the motion court committed no error in overruling Gomez’s motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

Braulio Gomez appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Gomez argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims because trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call two witnesses at Gomez’s trial. But because trial counsel’s decisions were based upon reasonable trial strategy, the motion court committed no error in overruling Gomez’s motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Gomez v. State, 468 S.W.3d 904, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 844, 2015 WL 5013521 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

468 S.W.3d 904 (Gomez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.