Joyner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Joyner v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 28, 1997·No. No. 21221·Published

Opinion

PARRISH, Judge.

Rickie Joyner (movant) appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Mis[92] souri, 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

PARRISH, Judge.

Rickie Joyner (movant) appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, Mis[92] souri, 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.

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

Pincite

945 S.W.2d 91 (Joyner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related