McMillon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McMillon v. State

492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2016 WL 3418454

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103258

StatusPublished

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

McMillon v. State, 492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2016 WL 3418454 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeremiah McMillon (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 [630]*630evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that the motion court erred when it found that: (1) pretrial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge a lineup in which a victim identified Movant without Movant’s counsel present; and (2) appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that multiple victim identifications should have been suppressed because they were the result of suggestive police procedures. 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.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeremiah McMillon (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 [630]*630evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues that the motion court erred when it found that: (1) pretrial counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge a lineup in which a victim identified Movant without Movant’s counsel present; and (2) appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert on appeal that multiple victim identifications should have been suppressed because they were the result of suggestive police procedures. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.3d 629, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2016 WL 3418454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillon-v-state-moctapp-2016.