Kelley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kelley v. State

280 S.W.3d 794, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 516, 2009 WL 1055059

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2009

DocketED 91446

StatusPublished

This text of 280 S.W.3d 794 (Kelley 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

Kelley v. State, 280 S.W.3d 794, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 516, 2009 WL 1055059 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Kelley (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073 RSMo (2000), 1 and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Movant was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years’ imprisonment on the domestic assault conviction and three years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction, to run concurrently. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Kelley, 219 S.W.3d 787 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Subsequently, Movant filed a *795 motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises one point on appeal. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing in that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to request a proper verdict director. In the same point, Movant also argues appellate counsel failed to raise this issue on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Kelley (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of domestic assault in the second degree, Section 565.073 RSMo (2000), 1 and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Movant was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years’ imprisonment on the domestic assault conviction and three years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction, to run concurrently. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Kelley, 219 S.W.3d 787 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Subsequently, Movant filed a *795 motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises one point on appeal. Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing in that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when defense counsel failed to request a proper verdict director. In the same point, Movant also argues appellate counsel failed to raise this issue on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 794, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 516, 2009 WL 1055059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack