McCoy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCoy v. State

492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 617, 2016 WL 3418448

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103300

StatusPublished

This text of 492 S.W.3d 629 (McCoy 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

McCoy v. State, 492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 617, 2016 WL 3418448 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Dary McCoy (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. In three points on appeal, Movant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to obtain an expert to review the State’s DNA . evidence presented at trial; 2) failing to call an expert witness regarding the gun holster presented as evidence at trial; and 3) failing to inform him that he would be represented by trial counsel rather than trial counsel’s law partner. Movant argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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

Dary McCoy (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. In three points on appeal, Movant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to obtain an expert to review the State’s DNA . evidence presented at trial; 2) failing to call an expert witness regarding the gun holster presented as evidence at trial; and 3) failing to inform him that he would be represented by trial counsel rather than trial counsel’s law partner. Movant argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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)

492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 617, 2016 WL 3418448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-state-moctapp-2016.