Joyner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Joyner v. State

945 S.W.2d 91, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 979, 1997 WL 277592

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 28, 1997

DocketNo. 21221

StatusPublished

This text of 945 S.W.2d 91 (Joyner 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

Joyner v. State, 945 S.W.2d 91, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 979, 1997 WL 277592 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARRISH, Judge.

Rickie Joyner (movant) appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Mis[92]*92souri, denying, after an evidentiary hearing before the court, a Rule 24.035 motion. He contends the motion court erred in holding that the attorney who represented him in his underlying criminal case did not render ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to request a psychiatric examination of mov-ant after learning movant suffered from epilepsy.

The motion court found “there was no reasonable cause to believe that Movant lacked mental fitness to proceed. In such situation, failure of defense counsel to move for a psychiatric examination does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.”

The motion court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Its judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. See Porter v. State, 928 S.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Mo.App. 1996). An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The order denying movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

MONTGOMERY, C.J., and CROW, P.J., concur.

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