Marks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Marks v. State

504 S.W.3d 100, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2016 WL 4437977

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103290

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 100 (Marks 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

Marks v. State, 504 S.W.3d 100, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2016 WL 4437977 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Marks (Movant) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly argue that Movant was entitled to a jury instruction of third-degree assault. Movant also asserts that trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective because they failed to argue that Mov-ant’s armed criminal action charge could not be submitted with the underlying felony of second-degree assault. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and .the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James Marks (Movant) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly argue that Movant was entitled to a jury instruction of third-degree assault. Movant also asserts that trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective because they failed to argue that Mov-ant’s armed criminal action charge could not be submitted with the underlying felony of second-degree assault. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and .the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 100, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 806, 2016 WL 4437977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marks-v-state-moctapp-2016.