Hickman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hickman v. State

372 S.W.3d 488, 2012 WL 1080566, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 453

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 2012·No. No. WD 72035·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Nena Hickman, was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Following af-firmance of her convictions on direct appeal, Hickman filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance through a failure to object to: (1) her wearing a leg restraint during trial, and (2) a statement in the prosecutor’s closing ar[489] gument that she claims misstated the evidence. The motion court rejected Hickman’s claims after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Nena Hickman, was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Following af-firmance of her convictions on direct appeal, Hickman filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance through a failure to object to: (1) her wearing a leg restraint during trial, and (2) a statement in the prosecutor’s closing ar[489] gument that she claims misstated the evidence. The motion court rejected Hickman’s claims after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Hickman v. State, 372 S.W.3d 488, 2012 WL 1080566, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 453 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

372 S.W.3d 488 (Hickman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.