Hudson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hudson v. State

487 S.W.3d 508, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2016 WL 1640267

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 2016

DocketWD 78760

StatusPublished

This text of 487 S.W.3d 508 (Hudson 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

Hudson v. State, 487 S.W.3d 508, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2016 WL 1640267 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[509]*509Order

Per Curiam:

Michael Hudson appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Hudson claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for conceding during closing argument that Hudson discarded the gun that was later identified as the gun used in the crime. Hudson argues that, to the extent counsel’s actions were based upon trial strategy, the strategy was unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

[509]*509Order

Per Curiam:

Michael Hudson appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Hudson claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for conceding during closing argument that Hudson discarded the gun that was later identified as the gun used in the crime. Hudson argues that, to the extent counsel’s actions were based upon trial strategy, the strategy was unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.3d 508, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2016 WL 1640267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-state-moctapp-2016.