Luckett v. State
This text of 309 S.W.3d 875 (Luckett 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.
Opinion
ORDER
Walter L. Luckett (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Darrel Holloway (a.k.a. Ralph Poe), whose testimony would have provided Movant with a complete defense by establishing that the drugs found by the police belonged to Holloway and that Movant did not know about the drugs.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
309 S.W.3d 875, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 611, 2010 WL 1860728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luckett-v-state-moctapp-2010.