JERROD v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

JERROD v. State

157 S.W.3d 375, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 403, 2005 WL 525237

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 2005

DocketED 84512

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 375 (JERROD 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

JERROD v. State, 157 S.W.3d 375, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 403, 2005 WL 525237 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Hermon Jerrod, Jr. (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance at his bench trial on charges of first degree murder, first degree robbery, first degree assault and armed criminal action. Movant specifically contends that his trial counsel failed to: (1) object to the State’s amendment of the murder in the first degree charge in Count 1 to murder in the second degree — felony in the alternative; (2) investigate and call a particular’ witness; and (3) seek to have admitted into evidence photographs of the area where the victim’s body was found.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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 award 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.

Hermon Jerrod, Jr. (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his appeal, Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred when it failed to find that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance at his bench trial on charges of first degree murder, first degree robbery, first degree assault and armed criminal action. Movant specifically contends that his trial counsel failed to: (1) object to the State’s amendment of the murder in the first degree charge in Count 1 to murder in the second degree — felony in the alternative; (2) investigate and call a particular’ witness; and (3) seek to have admitted into evidence photographs of the area where the victim’s body was found.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. 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 award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 375, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 403, 2005 WL 525237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerrod-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack