Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

391 S.W.3d 512, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2013 WL 433609

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2013

DocketNo. WD 74254

StatusPublished

This text of 391 S.W.3d 512 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 391 S.W.3d 512, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2013 WL 433609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert Johnson was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, following a jury trial, of forcible rape and second-degree statutory rape. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent terms of twenty-five years for forcible rape and seven years for statutory rape. Johnson filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15, alleging (as relevant to this appeal) that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to fully investigate Johnson’s whereabouts at the time of the crime and develop alibi testimony, and because she advised Johnson that he had to testify in his own defense, contrary to his wish not to testify. The circuit court denied Johnson’s post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert Johnson was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, following a jury trial, of forcible rape and second-degree statutory rape. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent terms of twenty-five years for forcible rape and seven years for statutory rape. Johnson filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15, alleging (as relevant to this appeal) that his trial counsel was ineffective because she failed to fully investigate Johnson’s whereabouts at the time of the crime and develop alibi testimony, and because she advised Johnson that he had to testify in his own defense, contrary to his wish not to testify. The circuit court denied Johnson’s post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 S.W.3d 512, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2013 WL 433609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2013.