Jamison v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jamison v. State

228 S.W.3d 49, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2007 WL 1858239

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2007

DocketED 88723

StatusPublished

This text of 228 S.W.3d 49 (Jamison 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

Jamison v. State, 228 S.W.3d 49, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2007 WL 1858239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason L. Jamison (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. A jury found the Mov-ant guilty of one count of armed criminal action and one count of second-degree murder.

On appeal, Movant argues that the court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) investigate, request, and have tested the original audiotape of John Johnson’s statement to the police to have it examined by a forensic expert; (2) investigate, subpoena and call Evelyn Smith as a defense witness at trial; (3) submit jury instruc *50 tions on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter; (4) impeach Johnson with Mov-ant’s videotape; (5) adduce testimony from Johnson and Smith tending to show that the police coerced their statements. Mov-ant further argues that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to turn over the original, or copy, audiotape of Johnson’s statement to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Helmig v. State, 42 S.W.3d 658, 665-66 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Jason L. Jamison (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. A jury found the Mov-ant guilty of one count of armed criminal action and one count of second-degree murder.

On appeal, Movant argues that the court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) investigate, request, and have tested the original audiotape of John Johnson’s statement to the police to have it examined by a forensic expert; (2) investigate, subpoena and call Evelyn Smith as a defense witness at trial; (3) submit jury instruc *50 tions on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter; (4) impeach Johnson with Mov-ant’s videotape; (5) adduce testimony from Johnson and Smith tending to show that the police coerced their statements. Mov-ant further argues that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to turn over the original, or copy, audiotape of Johnson’s statement to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Helmig v. State, 42 S.W.3d 658, 665-66 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 49, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 996, 2007 WL 1858239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamison-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack