Lane v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lane v. State

352 S.W.3d 616, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1399, 2011 WL 5041312

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 25, 2011·No. WD 72496·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lane, Jr. appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Lane claims that the motion court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Lane contends that his trial counsel failed (1) to assert Lane’s diminished capacity at the time of the killing by failing to ask the testifying psychiatrist whether Lane’s mental illness affected his ability to deliberate, and (2) to request that the trial court give the diminished capacity instruction to the jury. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lane, Jr. appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Lane claims that the motion court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Lane contends that his trial counsel failed (1) to assert Lane’s diminished capacity at the time of the killing by failing to ask the testifying psychiatrist whether Lane’s mental illness affected his ability to deliberate, and (2) to request that the trial court give the diminished capacity instruction to the jury. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Lane v. State, 352 S.W.3d 616, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1399, 2011 WL 5041312 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

352 S.W.3d 616 (Lane v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.