McCullough v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCullough v. State

509 S.W.3d 153, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 52, 2017 WL 401828

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

DocketWD 79532

StatusPublished

This text of 509 S.W.3d 153 (McCullough 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

McCullough v. State, 509 S.W.3d 153, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 52, 2017 WL 401828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Paula McCullough was convicted following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County of four counts of receiving stolen property. After her convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, McCullough filed a motion for postconviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Her appointed counsel filed an amended motion. As relevant here, the amended motion alleged that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense prior to trial that several of the prosecution’s witnesses had previous criminal convictions. McCullough contended that she was entitled to a new trial due to the nondisclosure of this impeachment material. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. McCullough appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Paula McCullough was convicted following a bench trial in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County of four counts of receiving stolen property. After her convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, McCullough filed a motion for postconviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Her appointed counsel filed an amended motion. As relevant here, the amended motion alleged that the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense prior to trial that several of the prosecution’s witnesses had previous criminal convictions. McCullough contended that she was entitled to a new trial due to the nondisclosure of this impeachment material. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. McCullough appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 S.W.3d 153, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 52, 2017 WL 401828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-state-moctapp-2017.