Minner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Minner v. State

370 S.W.3d 692, 2012 WL 3000384, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 913

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 24, 2012·No. No. WD 73979·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Minner appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. Minner argues that the trial court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the State’s references to his post-Miranda silence and when his appellate counsel failed to raise those references as an issue on appeal. Minner also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two emergency responders as witnesses. Finally, Minner contends that the State faded to disclose favorable evidence, in particular the report generated by the emergency responders. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Minner appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. Minner argues that the trial court clearly erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the State’s references to his post-Miranda silence and when his appellate counsel failed to raise those references as an issue on appeal. Minner also claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two emergency responders as witnesses. Finally, Minner contends that the State faded to disclose favorable evidence, in particular the report generated by the emergency responders. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Minner v. State, 370 S.W.3d 692, 2012 WL 3000384, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 913 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

370 S.W.3d 692 (Minner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.