Lewis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lewis v. State

340 S.W.3d 344, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 548, 2011 WL 1542736

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 2011

DocketWD 71189

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 S.W.3d 344 (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, 340 S.W.3d 344, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 548, 2011 WL 1542736 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Perry L. Lewis was convicted following a jury trial of multiple counts of burglary, robbery, and sexual misconduct. He appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. Lewis contends on appeal that the case must be reversed and remanded because the motion court failed to make findings of fact concerning one of his claims. He also argues that the motion court clearly erred in rejecting his claims that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to investigate and cross-examine the eyewitnesses concerning their failure to describe his limp in their pretrial statements or trial testimony, and (2) for failing to present evidence concerning an alibi defense to one of the charged offenses. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Perry L. Lewis was convicted following a jury trial of multiple counts of burglary, robbery, and sexual misconduct. He appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. Lewis contends on appeal that the case must be reversed and remanded because the motion court failed to make findings of fact concerning one of his claims. He also argues that the motion court clearly erred in rejecting his claims that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to investigate and cross-examine the eyewitnesses concerning their failure to describe his limp in their pretrial statements or trial testimony, and (2) for failing to present evidence concerning an alibi defense to one of the charged offenses. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 344, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 548, 2011 WL 1542736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack