Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

539 S.W.3d 119

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105177

StatusPublished

This text of 539 S.W.3d 119 (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, 539 S.W.3d 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*120Michael J. Johnson ("Johnson") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Johnson was convicted on one count of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. In his sole point on appeal, Johnson contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a jury instruction patterned after MAI-CR 3d 310.06. Finding that defense counsel's conduct did not prejudice Johnson, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

*120Michael J. Johnson ("Johnson") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Johnson was convicted on one count of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. In his sole point on appeal, Johnson contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a jury instruction patterned after MAI-CR 3d 310.06. Finding that defense counsel's conduct did not prejudice Johnson, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 S.W.3d 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2018.