Jennings v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jennings v. State

575 S.W.3d 785

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 28, 2019

DocketWD 81571

StatusPublished

This text of 575 S.W.3d 785 (Jennings 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

Jennings v. State, 575 S.W.3d 785 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Jeremy Jennings was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy in violation of § 566.062, RSMo. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Jennings filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Jennings appeals. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when counsel failed to retain an expert witness to challenge the manner in which the forensic interview of the child-victim was conducted, and to identify other circumstances which may have influenced the child-victim to falsely implicate Jennings. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Jeremy Jennings was convicted of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy in violation of § 566.062, RSMo. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Jennings filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Jennings appeals. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when counsel failed to retain an expert witness to challenge the manner in which the forensic interview of the child-victim was conducted, and to identify other circumstances which may have influenced the child-victim to falsely implicate Jennings. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.W.3d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-state-moctapp-2019.