Huffman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Huffman v. State

173 S.W.3d 648, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1501, 2005 WL 2649175

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketED 85282

StatusPublished

This text of 173 S.W.3d 648 (Huffman 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

Huffman v. State, 173 S.W.3d 648, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1501, 2005 WL 2649175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Huffman (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of murder in the second degree, Section 565.021 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Huffman, 113 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Subsequently, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises three points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel coerced him into not testifying at his trial. Second, Movant claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an opening statement to the jury. Third, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments regarding the victim during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no *649 precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Huffman (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of murder in the second degree, Section 565.021 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Huffman, 113 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Subsequently, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises three points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel coerced him into not testifying at his trial. Second, Movant claims trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an opening statement to the jury. Third, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments regarding the victim during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no *649 precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.3d 648, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1501, 2005 WL 2649175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack