Gray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. State

533 S.W.3d 823

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105445

StatusPublished

This text of 533 S.W.3d 823 (Gray 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 S.W.3d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-moctapp-2017.