Mann v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mann v. State

510 S.W.3d 898, 2017 WL 676728

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104188

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 898 (Mann 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

Mann v. State, 510 S.W.3d 898, 2017 WL 676728 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Mann (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ post-conviction relief motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with or hire an expert who could provide advice about, and testify regarding, blood spatter and spatter patterns, which would have enhanced his alibi defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian Mann (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ post-conviction relief motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult with or hire an expert who could provide advice about, and testify regarding, blood spatter and spatter patterns, which would have enhanced his alibi defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 898, 2017 WL 676728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-state-moctapp-2017.