Millett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Millett v. State

579 S.W.3d 268

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106627

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 579 S.W.3d 268 (Millett 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

Millett v. State, 579 S.W.3d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Terron Millett ("Millett") appeals from the motion court's denial of his post-conviction-relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Millett guilty of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action after he shot and killed a man at a gas station. Millett presents two points on appeal, both alleging that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion because trial counsel was ineffective. Point One contends that trial counsel failed to properly obtain Millett's informed consent to waive a jury trial. Point Two asserts that trial counsel failed to object to the State's aggressive and argumentative questioning of Millett during cross-examination.

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

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Terron Millett ("Millett") appeals from the motion court's denial of his post-conviction-relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Millett guilty of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action after he shot and killed a man at a gas station. Millett presents two points on appeal, both alleging that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion because trial counsel was ineffective. Point One contends that trial counsel failed to properly obtain Millett's informed consent to waive a jury trial. Point Two asserts that trial counsel failed to object to the State's aggressive and argumentative questioning of Millett during cross-examination.

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

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 S.W.3d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millett-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack