Gray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. State

533 S.W.3d 823

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 2017·No. No. ED 105445·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Eric Gray appeals the denial of his Rule 29.Í5 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Gray’s sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a mistrial after the jury twice indicated to the court during deliberations that it was deadlocked and could not reach a verdict. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, 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

Eric Gray appeals the denial of his Rule 29.Í5 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Gray’s sole point on appeal is his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a mistrial after the jury twice indicated to the court during deliberations that it was deadlocked and could not reach a verdict. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order'pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Gray v. State, 533 S.W.3d 823 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

533 S.W.3d 823 (Gray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.