Mann v. State

510 S.W.3d 898, 2017 WL 676728
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 2017·No. No. ED 104188·Published

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).

Footnotes

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

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

510 S.W.3d 898 (Mann v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.