Helm v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Helm v. State

358 S.W.3d 586, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 167, 2012 WL 453736

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 96345

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 586 (Helm 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

Helm v. State, 358 S.W.3d 586, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 167, 2012 WL 453736 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Helm (Helm) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Helm was convicted by a juiy on four counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action. The trial court prevented Helm from offering testimony relating to an alleged alibi because his trial counsel failed to give notice that Helm would offer an alibi. We affirmed Helm’s conviction in State v. Helm, 281 S.W.3d 927 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Helm subsequently sought relief under Mo. R.Crim. P. 29.15, 2009, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to give notice that Helm intended to offer an alibi. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Helm’s motion, finding that Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel’s action. Because Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to give notice of an alibi, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of prejudicial error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b)(2), 2011.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Helm (Helm) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. Helm was convicted by a juiy on four counts of first-degree robbery and four counts of armed criminal action. The trial court prevented Helm from offering testimony relating to an alleged alibi because his trial counsel failed to give notice that Helm would offer an alibi. We affirmed Helm’s conviction in State v. Helm, 281 S.W.3d 927 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Helm subsequently sought relief under Mo. R.Crim. P. 29.15, 2009, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to give notice that Helm intended to offer an alibi. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Helm’s motion, finding that Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel’s action. Because Helm was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to give notice of an alibi, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of prejudicial error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b)(2), 2011.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 586, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 167, 2012 WL 453736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/helm-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack