McCord v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCord v. State

164 S.W.3d 145, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 832, 2005 WL 1266806

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84998

StatusPublished

This text of 164 S.W.3d 145 (McCord 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

McCord v. State, 164 S.W.3d 145, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 832, 2005 WL 1266806 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark McCord (“Movant”) was found guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree arson. Movant was sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole for murder and a consecutive term of life for arson. This conviction was affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) in State v. McCord, 121 S.W.3d 255 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). On March 15, 2004 Movant timely filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and appointed counsel filed an amended motion. This motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing and Movant appeals.

In his motion, Movant raised one claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel alleging that trial counsel did not call or investigate five different witnesses who Movant claims would have testified to exculpatory statements made by his accomplice, Stanley Degonia (“Degonia”). Mov-ant claims these five witnesses would have testified that Degonia told them that although Movant was present at the assault, he only participated in the assault by hitting Degonia’s stepfather one time and then withdrew from the participation and left the scene prior to Degonia starting the fire. The motion court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was hearsay and that Movant’s claims were refuted by the record. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark McCord (“Movant”) was found guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree arson. Movant was sentenced to life without the possibility of probation or parole for murder and a consecutive term of life for arson. This conviction was affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) in State v. McCord, 121 S.W.3d 255 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). On March 15, 2004 Movant timely filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and appointed counsel filed an amended motion. This motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing and Movant appeals.

In his motion, Movant raised one claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel alleging that trial counsel did not call or investigate five different witnesses who Movant claims would have testified to exculpatory statements made by his accomplice, Stanley Degonia (“Degonia”). Mov-ant claims these five witnesses would have testified that Degonia told them that although Movant was present at the assault, he only participated in the assault by hitting Degonia’s stepfather one time and then withdrew from the participation and left the scene prior to Degonia starting the fire. The motion court denied the motion, finding that the evidence was hearsay and that Movant’s claims were refuted by the record. We find no error and affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.W.3d 145, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 832, 2005 WL 1266806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccord-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack