Greene v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Greene v. State

357 S.W.3d 612, 2012 WL 370638

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketWD 72960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 357 S.W.3d 612 (Greene 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

Greene v. State, 357 S.W.3d 612, 2012 WL 370638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Martay Greene was convicted of first-degree statutory rape and first-degree statutory sodomy. He appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Greene claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to call family members who would have testified that he did not sexually abuse their children (children other than the victim), and witnesses who would have testified that Greene did not primarily reside at the home of the victim’s mother, where the offenses occurred. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Martay Greene was convicted of first-degree statutory rape and first-degree statutory sodomy. He appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Greene claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to call family members who would have testified that he did not sexually abuse their children (children other than the victim), and witnesses who would have testified that Greene did not primarily reside at the home of the victim’s mother, where the offenses occurred. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 S.W.3d 612, 2012 WL 370638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack