Griffin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Griffin v. State

550 S.W.3d 584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 2018

DocketWD 80461

StatusPublished

This text of 550 S.W.3d 584 (Griffin 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

Griffin v. State, 550 S.W.3d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*585Appellant John Griffin was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and driving while revoked following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, State v. Griffin , 464 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (mem. ), Griffin filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Griffin appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecution during closing argument. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.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

PER CURIAM:

*585Appellant John Griffin was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and driving while revoked following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, State v. Griffin , 464 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (mem. ), Griffin filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Griffin appeals, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain statements made by the prosecution during closing argument. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

550 S.W.3d 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack