Hubbard v. State

327 S.W.3d 635, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1778, 2010 WL 5287378
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 28, 2010·No. WD 71233·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

This is an ineffective assistance of counsel case. The primary issue is whether, in a bench trial, a criminal defendant was prejudiced when the prosecutor questioned him regarding the facts that underlay his previous convictions. We hold that the defendant was not prejudiced because the court, when sitting as the trier-of-fact, is deemed to have disregarded any inadmissible evidence, and in this case the court stated for the record that it was disregarding the subject evidence. We also hold that the record supports a finding that the defendant’s trial counsel explained to him that he would in fact be cross-examined regarding his prior convictions. Further, the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient to provide meaningful appellate review. Therefore, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Hubbard v. State, 327 S.W.3d 635, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1778, 2010 WL 5287378 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

327 S.W.3d 635 (Hubbard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dudley v. KC PARKS AND RECREATION
327 S.W.3d 635 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)