Leonard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Leonard v. State

353 S.W.3d 682, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 5864422

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2011

DocketED 95773

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 S.W.3d 682 (Leonard 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

Leonard v. State, 353 S.W.3d 682, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 5864422 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Leonard (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant alleges that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he stated a claim not refuted by the record that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to voir dire members of the jury panel about whether they would exercise their own independent judgment if they were the “lone holdout” in the jury room.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Leonard (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant alleges that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because he stated a claim not refuted by the record that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to voir dire members of the jury panel about whether they would exercise their own independent judgment if they were the “lone holdout” in the jury room.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 682, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1562, 2011 WL 5864422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack