Lewis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lewis v. State

273 S.W.3d 79, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1458, 2008 WL 4773423

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 4, 2008

DocketWD 68604

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 79 (Lewis 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

Lewis v. State, 273 S.W.3d 79, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1458, 2008 WL 4773423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darin Lewis (Lewis) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Lewis argues that the court erred in denying his motion because *80 his trial counsel’s failure to call a witness to bolster his self-defense claim fell below the standard of care of a reasonably competent attorney and prejudiced the trial’s outcome. Having carefully considered Lewis’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Darin Lewis (Lewis) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Lewis argues that the court erred in denying his motion because *80 his trial counsel’s failure to call a witness to bolster his self-defense claim fell below the standard of care of a reasonably competent attorney and prejudiced the trial’s outcome. Having carefully considered Lewis’s contentions on appeal, we find no basis for reversing the decision of the trial court. A published formal opinion would have no precedential value, and the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 79, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1458, 2008 WL 4773423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-moctapp-2008.